INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
coffee
Posts: 1528
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#1 Post by coffee » January 30th, 2018, 6:56 am

Shaking the Magic Money Trees-bbc R4


Listen to it here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09pl66b


During last year's general election, Theresa May argued there was "No magic money tree" to pay for the things some voters wanted. Although she was chided for being unsympathetic to various worthy spending claims, a more fundamental criticism could have been levelled at the Prime Minister: There is indeed a Magic Money Tree!! Since the financial crisis, no less than £435billion of new money has been created through the policy of "quantitative easing", equivalent to a fifth of Britain's annual GDP. In this programme, financial journalist Michael Robinson finds out what happened to this staggering sum of money, and evaluates its effect on the lives of us all.

With the help of expert testimony, Robinson explains how this controversial policy works, effectively creating money at the push of a button. But as he also finds out, the new funds are only indirectly injected into the wider economy, typically through big institutional investors lending to companies. Few of these transactions, it turns out, have involved the kind of 'real world' investment that might be expected to stimulate the productive economy and generate growth. Indeed, almost all of them have been within the financial sector itself, and many people argue that the returns on QE have been astonishingly small.

Moreover, the influx of cash has inflated the price of assets, and led to a relative widening of the gap between rich and poor, which now threatens to upset our economic and political order. Even QE's deliberate objective to lower interest rates has also served to make homes and shares more expensive, while those already holding such assets have seen the greatest benefit. Britain's own 'Magic Money Tree' might have saved the economy from meltdown almost a decade ago, but it seems its many side-effects might have been far less beneficial.

Presenter: Michael Robinson
Producer: Michael Gallagher
Editor; Andrew Smith.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#2 Post by Nick » February 1st, 2018, 4:54 pm

coffee wrote:Shaking the Magic Money Trees-bbc R4


Listen to it here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09pl66b


During last year's general election, Theresa May argued there was "No magic money tree" to pay for the things some voters wanted. Although she was chided for being unsympathetic to various worthy spending claims, a more fundamental criticism could have been levelled at the Prime Minister: There is indeed a Magic Money Tree!! Since the financial crisis, no less than £435billion of new money has been created through the policy of "quantitative easing", equivalent to a fifth of Britain's annual GDP. In this programme, financial journalist Michael Robinson finds out what happened to this staggering sum of money, and evaluates its effect on the lives of us all.

All this shows is the spectacular ignorance (or mendacity) of Michael Robinson. The man's an idiot and is misleading the public. He should be put in detention and forced to learn his economics! Grrr!!
With the help of expert testimony, Robinson explains how this controversial policy works, effectively creating money at the push of a button.
That is exactly what it is.
But as he also finds out, the new funds are only indirectly injected into the wider economy, typically through big institutional investors lending to companies.
That is exactly what it is intended to do.
Few of these transactions, it turns out, have involved the kind of 'real world' investment that might be expected to stimulate the productive economy and generate growth.
Any evidence of this? Contrast this credit crunch with the 1930's Depression, when the opposite policy was followed. Which would you prefer?
Indeed, almost all of them have been within the financial sector itself, and many people argue that the returns on QE have been astonishingly small.
And yourr evidence is ....?
Moreover, the influx of cash has inflated the price of assets,
er, yes, to avoid disinflation, which would be hugely damaging to everyone, and very difficult to cure.
and led to a relative widening of the gap between rich and poor, which now threatens to upset our economic and political order.
..especially if twits like Robinson stir up the masses by getting their economics wrong!
Even QE's deliberate objective to lower interest rates has also served to make homes and shares more expensive, while those already holding such assets have seen the greatest benefit.
Except that if interest rates are cheaper, it makes payments cheaper too. And as it unwinds, then the over-valuation will decrease too.
Britain's own 'Magic Money Tree' might have saved the economy from meltdown almost a decade ago, but it seems its many side-effects might have been far less beneficial.
If you can think of a better solution, let's hear it. Certainly there are side effects of QE, but to imply that the money could have been spent instead is complete nonsense, and highly dangerous.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#3 Post by Alan H » February 1st, 2018, 5:18 pm

Nick wrote:All this shows is the spectacular ignorance (or mendacity) of Michael Robinson. The man's an idiot and is misleading the public. He should be put in detention and forced to learn his economics! Grrr!!
Tsk, tsk.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#4 Post by Nick » February 2nd, 2018, 9:54 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:All this shows is the spectacular ignorance (or mendacity) of Michael Robinson. The man's an idiot and is misleading the public. He should be put in detention and forced to learn his economics! Grrr!!
Tsk, tsk.
Typically useful and informative response, Alan. :rolleyes:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#5 Post by Alan H » February 2nd, 2018, 10:12 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:All this shows is the spectacular ignorance (or mendacity) of Michael Robinson. The man's an idiot and is misleading the public. He should be put in detention and forced to learn his economics! Grrr!!
Tsk, tsk.
Typically useful and informative response, Alan. :rolleyes:
Well, if it's not entirely obvious to you by now what your problem is in that, then there really is no hope.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#6 Post by Nick » February 2nd, 2018, 1:36 pm

You've obviously given Dale Carnagie a miss, then, Alan... :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#7 Post by Alan H » February 2nd, 2018, 1:54 pm

Nick wrote:You've obviously given Dale Carnagie a miss, then, Alan... :wink:
Who the fuck is Dale Carnagie? Does he teach about argumentation and logical fallacies?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#8 Post by Nick » February 2nd, 2018, 5:31 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:You've obviously given Dale Carnagie a miss, then, Alan... :wink:
Who the fuck is Dale Carnagie?
:laughter: I think that confirms it!

Does he teach about argumentation and logical fallacies?
You seem to be implying I've committed a logical fallacy. Care to share? :)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#9 Post by Alan H » February 2nd, 2018, 6:06 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:You've obviously given Dale Carnagie a miss, then, Alan... :wink:
Who the fuck is Dale Carnagie?
:laughter: I think that confirms it!
Well, neither Google nor Bing nor Yahoo seem to know anything about him either so I would appear to be in good company.
Does he teach about argumentation and logical fallacies?
You seem to be implying I've committed a logical fallacy. Care to share? :)
Well, that's one possibility that could be implied from what I said. But let's look at what you said:
All this shows is the spectacular ignorance (or mendacity) of Michael Robinson. The man's an idiot and is misleading the public. He should be put in detention and forced to learn his economics! Grrr!!
Now, please tell us why you claimed that.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#10 Post by Nick » February 2nd, 2018, 6:44 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Who the fuck is Dale Carnagie?
:laughter: I think that confirms it!
Well, neither Google nor Bing nor Yahoo seem to know anything about him either so I would appear to be in good company.
I'd have thought that someone of your ability would a) have heard of him anyway, and b) might have the wit to realise that I had inadvertently substituted an a for an e. After all, the search engines cited even encourage you to do so. :wink: Is that too much of an intellectual leap for you....? :wink:
Does he teach about argumentation and logical fallacies?
You seem to be implying I've committed a logical fallacy. Care to share? :)
Well, that's one possibility that could be implied from what I said. But let's look at what you said:
All this shows is the spectacular ignorance (or mendacity) of Michael Robinson. The man's an idiot and is misleading the public. He should be put in detention and forced to learn his economics! Grrr!!
Now, please tell us why you claimed that.[/quote]By "detention" I meant school detention, not Guantanamo Bay! Did you really think otherwise? Just how outrageous is that? And in answer to you question,: for the reasons cited, especially the last sentence. Now, instead of dodging the question, what is the logical fallacy you claim I have made?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#11 Post by Alan H » February 2nd, 2018, 7:24 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote: :laughter: I think that confirms it!
Well, neither Google nor Bing nor Yahoo seem to know anything about him either so I would appear to be in good company.
I'd have thought that someone of your ability would a) have heard of him anyway, and b) might have the wit to realise that I had inadvertently substituted an a for an e. After all, the search engines cited even encourage you to do so. :wink: Is that too much of an intellectual leap for you....? :wink:
Mind reading is not one of my skills, I'm afraid, so how am I to know you'd made a typographical error? Maybe you were referring to Laura Carnagie?
Well, that's one possibility that could be implied from what I said. But let's look at what you said:Now, please tell us why you claimed that.
By "detention" I meant school detention, not Guantanamo Bay! Did you really think otherwise? Just how outrageous is that? And in answer to you question,: for the reasons cited, especially the last sentence. Now, instead of dodging the question, what is the logical fallacy you claim I have made?
No, Nick, nothing to do with detention... I can't even begin to understand why you homed in on that. However, your 'argument' seems to be based on the ignorance (as you see it) of Robinson. In the context of his interviews, can you see any problem with that?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#12 Post by Nick » February 2nd, 2018, 7:56 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Well, neither Google nor Bing nor Yahoo seem to know anything about him either so I would appear to be in good company.
I'd have thought that someone of your ability would a) have heard of him anyway, and b) might have the wit to realise that I had inadvertently substituted an a for an e. After all, the search engines cited even encourage you to do so. :wink: Is that too much of an intellectual leap for you....? :wink:
Mind reading is not one of my skills, I'm afraid, so how am I to know you'd made a typographical error? Maybe you were referring to Laura Carnagie?
To use the Alan H path to success, "why the fuck" would I mean that? I was right previously, :wink:
Well, that's one possibility that could be implied from what I said. But let's look at what you said:Now, please tell us why you claimed that.
By "detention" I meant school detention, not Guantanamo Bay! Did you really think otherwise? Just how outrageous is that? And in answer to you question,: for the reasons cited, especially the last sentence. Now, instead of dodging the question, what is the logical fallacy you claim I have made?
No, Nick, nothing to do with detention... I can't even begin to understand why you homed in on that.
Good. I didn't think you were actually being that stupid :wink:
However, your 'argument' seems to be based on the ignorance (as you see it) of Robinson. In the context of his interviews, can you see any problem with that?
I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to presume you don't see any problem with that?

And yet again, you fail to address the question I asked you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#13 Post by Alan H » February 2nd, 2018, 9:12 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:I'd have thought that someone of your ability would a) have heard of him anyway, and b) might have the wit to realise that I had inadvertently substituted an a for an e. After all, the search engines cited even encourage you to do so. :wink: Is that too much of an intellectual leap for you....? :wink:
Mind reading is not one of my skills, I'm afraid, so how am I to know you'd made a typographical error? Maybe you were referring to Laura Carnagie?
To use the Alan H path to success, "why the fuck" would I mean that? I was right previously, :wink:
I've no idea. As I said, I'm not a mind reader.
By "detention" I meant school detention, not Guantanamo Bay! Did you really think otherwise? Just how outrageous is that? And in answer to you question,: for the reasons cited, especially the last sentence. Now, instead of dodging the question, what is the logical fallacy you claim I have made?
No, Nick, nothing to do with detention... I can't even begin to understand why you homed in on that.
Good. I didn't think you were actually being that stupid :wink:
However, your 'argument' seems to be based on the ignorance (as you see it) of Robinson. In the context of his interviews, can you see any problem with that?
I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to presume you don't see any problem with that?

And yet again, you fail to address the question I asked you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And again, you miss my point - which was that he was the presenter and, as presenter, he presented the views of Sarah John, Head of Sterling Markets Division, Andy Haldane, Chief Economist and Executive Director, Monetary Analysis & Statistics at the Bank of England, Saker Nusseibeh, Chief Executive Officer, chair of the Executive Committee and an Executive Board Director of Hermes Investment Management, Andrew Cowan, Chief Executive, Manchester Airport, Jonathan Layzell, Executive Director - Development of Stonewater, Colin Ellis, MD & Chief Credit Officer of EMEA, Moody's Corporation, Research Division, Victoria Lang-Whiston, Managing Director of Lang-Whiston Estates, Mariana Mazzucato, founder and Director of the Institute for Innnovation and Public Purpose at University College London and Frank van Lerven, Economist at the New Economics Foundation. Do all of them show spectacular ignorance (or mendacity)? Are they all idiots who are misleading the public? Should they all be put in detention and forced to learn their economics? To anticipate your next question - even though I'm not a mind reader - did Robinson misrepresent anything they said?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#14 Post by Nick » February 2nd, 2018, 10:16 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Mind reading is not one of my skills, I'm afraid, so how am I to know you'd made a typographical error? Maybe you were referring to Laura Carnagie?
To use the Alan H path to success, "why the fuck" would I mean that? I was right previously, :wink:
I've no idea. As I said, I'm not a mind reader.
Never mind being a mind reader I'm struggling to see a mind at all. Why is substituting "Laura" for "Dale" a better fit than an e for an a? Still, I think it's vey funny! :laughter:


However, your 'argument' seems to be based on the ignorance (as you see it) of Robinson. In the context of his interviews, can you see any problem with that?
I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to conclude you don't see any problem with that?
And yet again, you fail to address the question I asked you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And again, you miss my point - which was that he was the presenter and, as presenter, he presented the views of Sarah John, Head of Sterling Markets Division, Andy Haldane, Chief Economist and Executive Director, Monetary Analysis & Statistics at the Bank of England, Saker Nusseibeh, Chief Executive Officer, chair of the Executive Committee and an Executive Board Director of Hermes Investment Management, Andrew Cowan, Chief Executive, Manchester Airport, Jonathan Layzell, Executive Director - Development of Stonewater, Colin Ellis, MD & Chief Credit Officer of EMEA, Moody's Corporation, Research Division, Victoria Lang-Whiston, Managing Director of Lang-Whiston Estates, Mariana Mazzucato, founder and Director of the Institute for Innnovation and Public Purpose at University College London and Frank van Lerven, Economist at the New Economics Foundation. Do all of them show spectacular ignorance (or mendacity)? Are they all idiots who are misleading the public? Should they all be put in detention and forced to learn their economics? To anticipate your next question - even though I'm not a mind reader - did Robinson misrepresent anything they said?
I've no Idea what any of those people said, as I have no wish to sign up to the BBC. Does what they said agree with the BBC's summary, which is what I'm criticising? And, just to keep you on your toes, why are you using the argument from authority? :D

Oh, and btw, NEF is widely believed to stand for "Not Economics, Frankly", so I would place any thust in them. :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#15 Post by Alan H » February 2nd, 2018, 10:37 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:To use the Alan H path to success, "why the fuck" would I mean that? I was right previously, :wink:
I've no idea. As I said, I'm not a mind reader.
Never mind being a mind reader I'm struggling to see a mind at all. Why is substituting "Laura" for "Dale" a better fit than an e for an a? Still, I think it's vey funny! :laughter:
Glad to see you find it funny. You still miss the point, though, which was that I cannot possibly know what your brain intended to type: it might have been possible to jump to a conclusion about what you intended to type, assume you had only made a single character error, but there was no way of knowing and you know what assumptions make...
However, your 'argument' seems to be based on the ignorance (as you see it) of Robinson. In the context of his interviews, can you see any problem with that?
I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to conclude you don't see any problem with that?
No, you cannot conclude that at all.
And yet again, you fail to address the question I asked you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And again, you miss my point - which was that he was the presenter and, as presenter, he presented the views of Sarah John, Head of Sterling Markets Division, Andy Haldane, Chief Economist and Executive Director, Monetary Analysis & Statistics at the Bank of England, Saker Nusseibeh, Chief Executive Officer, chair of the Executive Committee and an Executive Board Director of Hermes Investment Management, Andrew Cowan, Chief Executive, Manchester Airport, Jonathan Layzell, Executive Director - Development of Stonewater, Colin Ellis, MD & Chief Credit Officer of EMEA, Moody's Corporation, Research Division, Victoria Lang-Whiston, Managing Director of Lang-Whiston Estates, Mariana Mazzucato, founder and Director of the Institute for Innnovation and Public Purpose at University College London and Frank van Lerven, Economist at the New Economics Foundation. Do all of them show spectacular ignorance (or mendacity)? Are they all idiots who are misleading the public? Should they all be put in detention and forced to learn their economics? To anticipate your next question - even though I'm not a mind reader - did Robinson misrepresent anything they said?
I've no Idea what any of those people said, as I have no wish to sign up to the BBC. Does what they said agree with the BBC's summary, which is what I'm criticising? And, just to keep you on your toes, why are you using the argument from authority? :D
You misunderstand the fallacy of argument from authority, of course. But it's odd you criticise the programme yet admit you've not even bothered to listen to what was said.
Oh, and btw, NEF is widely believed to stand for "Not Economics, Frankly", so I would place any thust in them. :wink:
Another ad hom? Or is it poisoning the well again?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#16 Post by Nick » February 2nd, 2018, 11:04 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:I've no idea. As I said, I'm not a mind reader.
Never mind being a mind reader I'm struggling to see a mind at all. Why is substituting "Laura" for "Dale" a better fit than an e for an a? Still, I think it's vey funny! :laughter:
Glad to see you find it funny. You still miss the point, though, which was that I cannot possibly know what your brain intended to type: it might have been possible to jump to a conclusion about what you intended to type, assume you had only made a single character error, but there was no way of knowing and you know what assumptions make...
And yet you continue to expect me to guess what you mean by "tsk tsk". Dear of dear oh dear. "Laura", though! :hilarity:
However, your 'argument' seems to be based on the ignorance (as you see it) of Robinson. In the context of his interviews, can you see any problem with that?
I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to conclude you don't see any problem with that?
No, you cannot conclude that at all.
Oh great! You criticise me for thinking that you might allow a single letter to be wrong, even when the search engines prompt you, as they do, and now you expect me to guess your unfathomable mind? Sheesh!
And again, you miss my point - which was that he was the presenter and, as presenter, he presented the views of Sarah John, Head of Sterling Markets Division, Andy Haldane, Chief Economist and Executive Director, Monetary Analysis & Statistics at the Bank of England, Saker Nusseibeh, Chief Executive Officer, chair of the Executive Committee and an Executive Board Director of Hermes Investment Management, Andrew Cowan, Chief Executive, Manchester Airport, Jonathan Layzell, Executive Director - Development of Stonewater, Colin Ellis, MD & Chief Credit Officer of EMEA, Moody's Corporation, Research Division, Victoria Lang-Whiston, Managing Director of Lang-Whiston Estates, Mariana Mazzucato, founder and Director of the Institute for Innnovation and Public Purpose at University College London and Frank van Lerven, Economist at the New Economics Foundation. Do all of them show spectacular ignorance (or mendacity)? Are they all idiots who are misleading the public? Should they all be put in detention and forced to learn their economics? To anticipate your next question - even though I'm not a mind reader - did Robinson misrepresent anything they said?
I've no Idea what any of those people said, as I have no wish to sign up to the BBC. Does what they said agree with the BBC's summary, which is what I'm criticising? And, just to keep you on your toes, why are you using the argument from authority? :D
You misunderstand the fallacy of argument from authority, of course. But it's odd you criticise the programme yet admit you've not even bothered to listen to what was said.
I was commenting on the summary, which was, after all, what was posted. Are you telling me the summary was wrong?
Oh, and btw, NEF is widely believed to stand for "Not Economics, Frankly", so I would place any thust in them. :wink:
Another ad hom? Or is it poisoning the well again?
No, not another ad hom, but a view based on experience. And you seemed to have coped admirably with a couple of typo's! Well done!! :D

So, Alan, what's the difference between a budget deficit and quantitative easing? Or don't you know?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24047
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#17 Post by Alan H » February 2nd, 2018, 11:30 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:Never mind being a mind reader I'm struggling to see a mind at all. Why is substituting "Laura" for "Dale" a better fit than an e for an a? Still, I think it's vey funny! :laughter:
Glad to see you find it funny. You still miss the point, though, which was that I cannot possibly know what your brain intended to type: it might have been possible to jump to a conclusion about what you intended to type, assume you had only made a single character error, but there was no way of knowing and you know what assumptions make...
And yet you continue to expect me to guess what you mean by "tsk tsk". Dear of dear oh dear. "Laura", though! :hilarity:
Ah. It's still not clear to you. Nevermind.
I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to conclude you don't see any problem with that?
No, you cannot conclude that at all.
Oh great! You criticise me for thinking that you might allow a single letter to be wrong, even when the search engines prompt you, as they do, and now you expect me to guess your unfathomable mind? Sheesh!
Goodness, no. I don't expect that at all. But search engines aren't mind readers either: they can't tell what you intended to type even though it might seem like it to the uninitiated (vide Arthur C Clarke's third law). All they can do is guess based to a large extent on your previous searches and what others have searched for, but it is just that: the search results presented to me are very likely to be different. The fact that you seem to think they guessed correctly is a bias - I can't immediately name it, but it's of no consequence.
I've no Idea what any of those people said, as I have no wish to sign up to the BBC. Does what they said agree with the BBC's summary, which is what I'm criticising? And, just to keep you on your toes, why are you using the argument from authority? :D
You misunderstand the fallacy of argument from authority, of course. But it's odd you criticise the programme yet admit you've not even bothered to listen to what was said.
I was commenting on the summary, which was, after all, what was posted. Are you telling me the summary was wrong?
No, I'm not telling you that at all.
Oh, and btw, NEF is widely believed to stand for "Not Economics, Frankly", so I would place any thust in them. :wink:
Another ad hom? Or is it poisoning the well again?
No, not another ad hom, but a view based on experience. And you seemed to have coped admirably with a couple of typo's! Well done!! :D
It's to do with redundancy, Nick. So, it's a poisoning the well fallacy, then.
So, Alan, what's the difference between a budget deficit and quantitative easing? Or don't you know?
Why are you asking me?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here

#18 Post by Nick » February 3rd, 2018, 10:04 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Glad to see you find it funny. You still miss the point, though, which was that I cannot possibly know what your brain intended to type: it might have been possible to jump to a conclusion about what you intended to type, assume you had only made a single character error, but there was no way of knowing and you know what assumptions make...
And yet you continue to expect me to guess what you mean by "tsk tsk". Dear of dear oh dear. "Laura", though! :hilarity:
Ah. It's still not clear to you. Nevermind.
:yawn:
No, you cannot conclude that at all.
Oh great! You criticise me for thinking that you might allow a single letter to be wrong, even when the search engines prompt you, as they do, and now you expect me to guess your unfathomable mind? Sheesh!
Goodness, no. I don't expect that at all.
How enigmatic!
But search engines aren't mind readers either: they can't tell what you intended to type even though it might seem like it to the uninitiated (vide Arthur C Clarke's third law). All they can do is guess based to a large extent on your previous searches and what others have searched for, but it is just that: the search results presented to me are very likely to be different.
I'll est that assertion, next time i'm in the Library.....
The fact that you seem to think they guessed correctly is a bias - I can't immediately name it, but it's of no consequence.
The fact that you seem determined to avois any discussion of the original post is just a tiresome bias. And pretty pointless, too.
You misunderstand the fallacy of argument from authority, of course. But it's odd you criticise the programme yet admit you've not even bothered to listen to what was said.
I was commenting on the summary, which was, after all, what was posted. Are you telling me the summary was wrong?
No, I'm not telling you that at all.
So what are you telling me? :shrug:

Another ad hom? Or is it poisoning the well again?
No, not another ad hom, but a view based on experience. And you seemed to have coped admirably with a couple of typo's! Well done!! :D
It's to do with redundancy, Nick. So, it's a poisoning the well fallacy, then.
So no-one can make any comment now.... :sad2:
So, Alan, what's the difference between a budget deficit and quantitative easing? Or don't you know?
Why are you asking me?
[/quote]In an attempt to get back to the original post, which confuses the two.

Post Reply