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.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
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.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
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.
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.
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
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!!
That is exactly what it is.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 intended to do.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.
Any evidence of this? Contrast this credit crunch with the 1930's Depression, when the opposite policy was followed. Which would you prefer?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.
And yourr evidence is ....?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.
er, yes, to avoid disinflation, which would be hugely damaging to everyone, and very difficult to cure.Moreover, the influx of cash has inflated the price of assets,
..especially if twits like Robinson stir up the masses by getting their economics wrong!and led to a relative widening of the gap between rich and poor, which now threatens to upset our economic and political order.
Except that if interest rates are cheaper, it makes payments cheaper too. And as it unwinds, then the over-valuation will decrease too.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.
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.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.
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
Tsk, tsk.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!!
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?
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?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
Typically useful and informative response, Alan.Alan H wrote:Tsk, tsk.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!!
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
Well, if it's not entirely obvious to you by now what your problem is in that, then there really is no hope.Nick wrote:Typically useful and informative response, Alan.Alan H wrote:Tsk, tsk.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!!
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?
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?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
You've obviously given Dale Carnagie a miss, then, Alan...
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
Who the fuck is Dale Carnagie? Does he teach about argumentation and logical fallacies?Nick wrote:You've obviously given Dale Carnagie a miss, then, Alan...
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?
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?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
I think that confirms it!Alan H wrote:Who the fuck is Dale Carnagie?Nick wrote:You've obviously given Dale Carnagie a miss, then, Alan...
You seem to be implying I've committed a logical fallacy. Care to share?Does he teach about argumentation and logical fallacies?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
Well, neither Google nor Bing nor Yahoo seem to know anything about him either so I would appear to be in good company.Nick wrote:I think that confirms it!Alan H wrote:Who the fuck is Dale Carnagie?Nick wrote:You've obviously given Dale Carnagie a miss, then, Alan...
Well, that's one possibility that could be implied from what I said. But let's look at what you said:You seem to be implying I've committed a logical fallacy. Care to share?Does he teach about argumentation and logical fallacies?
Now, please tell us why you claimed that.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!!
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?
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?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
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. Is that too much of an intellectual leap for you....?
Well, that's one possibility that could be implied from what I said. But let's look at what you said:You seem to be implying I've committed a logical fallacy. Care to share?Does he teach about argumentation and logical fallacies?
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?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!!
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
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?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. Is that too much of an intellectual leap for you....?
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?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?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.
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?
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?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
To use the Alan H path to success, "why the fuck" would I mean that? I was right previously,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?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. Is that too much of an intellectual leap for you....?
Good. I didn't think you were actually being that stupidNo, Nick, nothing to do with detention... I can't even begin to understand why you homed in on 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?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.
I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to presume you don't see any problem with 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?
And yet again, you fail to address the question I asked you.
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
I've no idea. As I said, I'm not a mind reader.Nick wrote:To use the Alan H path to success, "why the fuck" would I mean that? I was right previously,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?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. Is that too much of an intellectual leap for you....?
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?Good. I didn't think you were actually being that stupidNo, Nick, nothing to do with detention... I can't even begin to understand why you homed in on 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?
I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to presume you don't see any problem with 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?
And yet again, you fail to address the question I asked you.
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?
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?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
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!Alan H wrote:I've no idea. As I said, I'm not a mind reader.Nick wrote:To use the Alan H path to success, "why the fuck" would I mean that? I was right previously,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?
I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to conclude you don't see any problem with 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?
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?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?And yet again, you fail to address the question I asked you.
Oh, and btw, NEF is widely believed to stand for "Not Economics, Frankly", so I would place any thust in them.
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
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...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!Alan H wrote:I've no idea. As I said, I'm not a mind reader.Nick wrote:To use the Alan H path to success, "why the fuck" would I mean that? I was right previously,
No, you cannot conclude that at all.I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to conclude you don't see any problem with 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?
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'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?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?And yet again, you fail to address the question I asked you.
Another ad hom? Or is it poisoning the well again?Oh, and btw, NEF is widely believed to stand for "Not Economics, Frankly", so I would place any thust in them.
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?
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?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
And yet you continue to expect me to guess what you mean by "tsk tsk". Dear of dear oh dear. "Laura", though!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...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!Alan H wrote:I've no idea. As I said, I'm not a mind reader.
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!No, you cannot conclude that at all.I see a problem with his conclusion, as summarised in the text. Am I to conclude you don't see any problem with 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?
I was commenting on the summary, which was, after all, what was posted. Are you telling me the summary was wrong?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'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?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?
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!!Another ad hom? Or is it poisoning the well again?Oh, and btw, NEF is widely believed to stand for "Not Economics, Frankly", so I would place any thust in them.
So, Alan, what's the difference between a budget deficit and quantitative easing? Or don't you know?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
Ah. It's still not clear to you. Nevermind.Nick wrote:And yet you continue to expect me to guess what you mean by "tsk tsk". Dear of dear oh dear. "Laura", though!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...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!
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.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!No, you cannot conclude that at all.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, I'm not telling you that at all.I was commenting on the summary, which was, after all, what was posted. Are you telling me the summary was wrong?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'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?
It's to do with redundancy, Nick. So, it's a poisoning the well fallacy, then.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!!Another ad hom? Or is it poisoning the well again?Oh, and btw, NEF is widely believed to stand for "Not Economics, Frankly", so I would place any thust in them.
Why are you asking me?So, Alan, what's the difference between a budget deficit and quantitative easing? Or don't you know?
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?
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?
Re: Shaking the Magic Money Trees - bbc R4 - Listen to it here
Alan H wrote:Ah. It's still not clear to you. Nevermind.Nick wrote:And yet you continue to expect me to guess what you mean by "tsk tsk". Dear of dear oh dear. "Laura", though!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...
How enigmatic!Goodness, no. I don't expect 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!No, you cannot conclude that at all.
I'll est that assertion, next time i'm in the Library.....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 determined to avois any discussion of the original post is just a tiresome bias. And pretty pointless, too.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.
So what are you telling me?No, I'm not telling you that at all.I was commenting on the summary, which was, after all, what was posted. Are you telling me the summary was wrong?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.
So no-one can make any comment now....It's to do with redundancy, Nick. So, it's a poisoning the well fallacy, then.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!!Another ad hom? Or is it poisoning the well again?
[/quote]In an attempt to get back to the original post, which confuses the two.Why are you asking me?So, Alan, what's the difference between a budget deficit and quantitative easing? Or don't you know?