patrick.net

I've been working for a while on a blog post on this concept

smaulgld says

I've been working for a while on a blog post on this concept

I enjoy your articles. I am truly looking forward to it. Let us know when it's complete.

hrhjuliet says

I enjoy your articles. I am truly looking forward to it. Let us know when it's complete.

Thanks. Will post it here.

The article I posted is well written, but I am afraid above the education level of most Americans. It is also not as applicable to Americans, since it refers to social norms of Great Britain, though, it still has many parallels. It would be great to get an article out there that Americans can understand. I'm glad you are working on it. The sooner the better.

I really wish more people on Patrick.net would comment on the article.

hrhjuliet says

I really wish more people on Patrick.net would comment on the article.

Okay.

The point is that Bitcoin is a virtual currency sustained by a Ponzi-like belief that it is not worthless, and unbacked by the banking sector, gold or any of the established underpinnings of monetary value.

There are two terms which need to disappear from English right away: "red herring" and "Ponzi scheme", both of which are used by anyone trying to sound worldly and profound.

All currencies are virtual. The nickel-copper slug which the author remembered using as a child was not literally worth the value of the metal used to make it, so it was a virtual currency.

A one-ounce gold coin is actually worth its weight in gold, but gold, having no demand beyond jewelry, small-scale industrial applications, and hoarding, also is mostly worth what people agree it's worth.

Neither of these is powerfully different from Bitcoin. The author writes with a faux-humble attitude intended to mock Bitcoin, but in so doing demonstrates his ignorance of the fragile underpinnings of anything agreed upon as money.

Weirdly, even the gold bugs missed these points. After decades of moaning "Fed evil", and "we need to take money creation away from the government", they moaned about Bitcoin because it wasn't gold. I have no idea what goes on in their minds, except maybe "I own a lot of gold, so the world owes me a handsome profit on it."

Americans just don't understand, sure.

I didn't read the article since it bores me to read a link, but if you want to know why London real estate is expensive, I guess it's rich foreigners seeking the safety and stability of the legal system there as opposed to their own, either Russia, or wherever. It's surely not because of the weather.

British who are priced out should save up and move to Sussex, it's nicer there anyway.

But Britain has historically been a poor country, and opportunties may be less today than previously; 40+% of GDP is from London's financial sector, "the street", similar to Wall Street supporting NYC economy.

So, if you are British and don't work over in London at some financial place, you're as bad off as you were before WW11, which was also pretty lousy.

Disclosure: I have lived in England, it was great, but everyone seemed poor.

Are Americans perceived as ignorant?

Not that I would disagree.

I would change the profound wisdom of Homer to: The FED, both the cause and solution to all of our problems. (8^(l)

Consider that before the FED there was no inflation therefore speculation would not have been as lucrative.

Therefore people would be acutely aware of the value of things AND the price of things.

Question is what one single thing, if done differently would change the lay of the land?

Just because this is Austrian do not dismiss this idea.

hrhjuliet says

but I am afraid above the education level of most Americans.

I will take your reticence as the answer. Fair enough

Bah! That Guardian article is silly and puts cause before effect.

I think this is a better version of the same exact point.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/when-the-top-goes-over-the-top-what-the-soaring-price-of-ferraris-wine-and-art-tell-us/

myob says

I think this is a better version of the same exact point.

Tru dat

hrhjuliet says

Money has corrupted us. We no longer understand what it's worth

I still want it.

I know one thing, if things keep on like they're going, it'll be like Germany in 1923 with everyone carrying around trillions of worthless paper bills in wheelbarrows.

hrhjuliet says

money "is the visible divinity" involving "the transformation of all human and natural properties into their contraries, the universal overturning and confounding of things

It has nothing to do with just money as things could be run very differently. It's just that the power that be are bent on preserving a financial system at all price, and the price involves doing things that go directly against the interests of most people in the country. Probably they honestly think that people would be worse off if they let go of the increasingly tattered veil of easy wealth that hides a reality gone ugly long ago.

P N Dr Lo R says

I know one thing, if things keep on like they're going, it'll be like Germany in 1923 with everyone carrying around trillions of worthless paper bills in wheelbarrows.

As long as the banks are not lending there will not be much inflation short of RE, Luxury goods, Stock. But when they do start lending Katy bar the door, Yellin will then have to raise the interest rates, debt service is going to be a much bigger part of the budget, RE and Stock are going to go down a lot.

hrhjuliet says

I really wish more people on Patrick.net would comment on the article.

I have a rant that I've been developing for a while, before the 2008 crisis hit.

Part of it is here:

http://patrick.net/?p=1236727

but the foundation of it is my money is not wealth "lecture". It starts with:

Wealth has several levels of meaning, the most basic is the state of being "well", of having no unmet needs and wants.

Its next level is that which provides services fulfill these human needs and wants.

We call the goods that produce this state “wealth” too, AND, more confusingly, we also call the money and assets we hold “wealth”.

But money is not wealth, money is a claimcheck on wealth.

Similarly, assets have valuation, and while valuation can be monetized, valuation is not "really" wealth, either.

Capital is a fascinating form of wealth. I think of it as “indirect wealth” since capital is involved in the production of wealth -- but, by itself in isolation, capital does not have any utility that satisfies human needs and wants. This capital serves as a labor-multiplier, eg. how a large whiteboard is more effective in teaching than a tiny chalkboard.

The key to success in this economy -- to acquire the productive wealth that "throws off" income to replace one's wage income -- is to find assets that have enduring value, that won't degrade, and are in such limited supply that ownership represents a monopoly position.

Real Estate has been historically a very profitable asset of this type. Try living without it for a day or two -- you would need to buy a balloon or a boat!

AFAICT all economies bankrupt themselves eventually on the rock of real estate valuations, since real estate simply sucks all money-wealth out of the productive, wage-earning economy.

It is my great hope that Japan's ongoing depopulation will enable the country to be the first to break this "Progress & Poverty" cycle of ever-escalating real estate valuations.

Their population of age 20-39 has declined 10% since 1992, and the population of age 0-9 now is 25% less than 1990, so this decline will continue for the foreseeable future.

Germany is about the only non ex-Soviet Sphere country that hasn't screwed themselves with real estate (perhaps France, too, for all I know). Korea, Taiwan also apparently have had effective state interventions in the housing market.

sbh says

Capital satisfies the needs and wants I direct it to

A dremel and the ability to use it are both forms of capital wealth. Yet a dremel on its own, in isolation, is rather useless unless you get enjoyment just making holes in things.

So capital goods are what I call indirect wealth, they don't provide any direct utility to consumers.

Capital wealth can also be savings that we live on instead of wages. But this form of capital is not supply-constrained like tools and other forms of hard capital. The introduction of money into the picture distorts what wealth is, fiat money especially.

Of my personal wealth, I never count real estate

It still is an asset. My bud now living in the Santa Cruz mountains did a pretty smart thing buying his million-plus place in 2011.

It's overkill for his needs, but has risen in value 5% each year, giving him a good inflation hedge thus far. The bulk of the value of this property is simply its million-dollar views and convenient location to Santa Cruz and the valley (the former more than the latter, but the commute is doable).

Funny how air is wealth, but free.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271690/Bottled-AIR-Chinese-multimillionaire-sells-EIGHT-MILLION-cans-fresh-air-TEN-DAYS-pollution-levels-climb-record-high.html

they're working on that, too

Do you know the dollar was worth a dollar all the way until the end of World War II, and didn't get far from what dollar was in 1776, until around the middle 70's with the Oil embargo, which it's been on this made up fantasy "YOY Inflation" there's no such thing. Stocks, money, the dollar, all of it, isn't supposed to grow, your businesses productivity should plateau to where it can sustain it's self and pay the wages of those who support it. It's not supposes to double in customers, volume, locations, ect YOY. That is all a recent phenomena born out of Greed.

One penny in 1901 was worth the same damn thing and went just as far, as a penny in 1776.

sbh says

CaptainShuddup says

Do you know the dollar was worth a dollar all the way until the end of World War II

No matter what Faux Noise tells you, a dollar is still worth just a dollar, Captain.

The US Dollar was defined by the Founding Fathers according to the average circulating weight of the Spanish Silver Dollar in North American colonies (and most of the world then not on British gold standard). That silver content weight was about 3/4 an ounce of fine silver, meaning the 90%-silver disc minted by the Spanish colonial government using (what is now) Mexican silver had about 3/4 troy ounce of pure silver in it. Prior to 1873, anyone digging up silver from the ground could ask the US Mint to turn that newly found silver into dollar coins free of charge. That was the money supply for base money. i.e. money supply was literally in the hands of the people, usually those who were desperate enough to hack the ground and get silver out of it, instead of being in the hands of a bunch of academics selected by the banksters. After silver was demonetized, the value of US dollar became defined by gold alone, at about 1/20th ounce of fine gold (meaning a 22karat disc containing almost an ounce of pure gold had a face value of $20). The dollar value in silver terms actually went up as a result, peaking in the early part of 20th century at a dollar buying nearly 6 ounces of silver. That ratio dropped precipitously after WWII. By the late 1960's, the dollar became worth less than 3/4 of ounce of silver, and stayed below that ever since, now at less than 0.05 ounce of silver.

sbh says

One of my fondest friends is virtually penniless but lives a wonderfully rich life

yup, central to my thesis of "wealth" is being "well", of having no unmet needs and wants. If you can control what you feel you want, you can be wealthier. Pretty zen, eh.

That's the secret of the third world I guess, where the relative poverty is not necessarily grinding in the sense that needs are met at least.

I was in Whole Foods today and marveled at all the wealth on display -- food being a primary need and good food a primary want. I guess I could buy out the entire store for not too many tens of thousands of dolllars, certainly less than the money I've blown on rent lo these past few years. Too bad food is so perishable! Makes saving for the future a lot harder!

A dremel (as any tool does) allows one to create new wealth and repair existing wealth, but being a tool, it does not directly service a human need or want, other than the occasional human want of being occupied with a task.

A fine wine, however, fulfills more immediate, universal, and obvious wants of utility. The wealth a wine provides can be quite valuable, as the pleasure it brings with or after a meal can be quite significant.

As does a candy bar or a 25oz Bud Light for less high-brow consumers of items in much greater supply.

Supply and demand is also an issue here. A dremel can be assembled by factor labor making $2/hr or whatever. A fine wine is a more difficult thing to produce.

But today's mass-produced 79c candy bar would have been an immensely valuable confection not 100 years ago I suspect.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/candybar.htm

ah, the Clark Bar was invented in 1916.

The new app economy is also an interesting area to sketch the wealth creation. People want entertainment. They used to get it from Big Media -- New York for publishing and Tin Pan Alley, "Hollywood" for movies, TV, and pop/rock music.

But now there's been a great disintermediation, or at least a rearrangement of the marketplace, where app creators can directly sell to app consumers on their own devices.

This is a very interesting development, one that I've largely missed in practice but understood its promise when it first arrived in 2008.

Bellingham Bill says

yup, central to my thesis of "wealth" is being "well", of having no unmet needs and wants. If you can control what you feel you want, you can be wealthier. Pretty zen, eh.

This sort of commie hippy claptrap will not get you anywhere.

This is America! We idolize Wall Streeters and celebrities. We watch reality shows about Home Makeovers. We screech at each other over taxes and budgets incessantly. It is not a country where we rationally judge quality of life instead of tokens of visible wealth, anyone who values that is judged a lazy layabout and suspect.

Your ideas hearken me to the Zeitgeist Addendum closing scene:

http://youtu.be/HbvCxMfcKv4?t=1h58m24s

I choose to live with few possession and we spend very little in our family. Our tax person had to laugh at our credit card purchases - there was the market, gas and not much else on our statements. We keep it simple. It's strange, most families I know with expensive cars, jewelry, and toys seem to have the most unhappiness. The more they spend on vacations, sports and the hairdresser, the more likely they always seem to be heading for a divorce?

People always marvel over how happy our marriage is and how close we are with our kids. I never can think of anything we do differently except keep it simple.

clambo says

So, if you are British and don't work over in London at some financial place, you're as bad off as you were before WW11, which was also pretty lousy.

Disclosure: I have lived in England, it was great, but everyone seemed poor.

Where did you live in England?

And in what way are people as badly off as they were before WWII? People are generally far better off than then, and have a far better safety net in place - the obvious example (among many) being the post-war introduction of the NHS.

hrhjuliet says

I really wish more people on Patrick.net would comment on the article.

It's the simple issue of money versus value. What is witnessing the the first basket made by my child in a basketball game? For me, priceless. Ditto things like watching her in a school play, when she got married, graduation, etc. Some would argue, some do. You can witness that basketball game OR you can meet with a client on that same day and time in a location 3000 miles away, the choice is yours BUT you also know that if you refuse to meet with the client your job is in dire peril.

This house is up for sale at 850K pounds (sorry, don't know how to make the pound sign on my keyboard). Is it worth it? Not really, but it's no different than some properties listed for sale in NY or SF (or other parts of CA). What's it worth? It's worth whatever someone is willing to pay. If it sits for six months with no offers (or offers that are significantly lower) then chances are they will re-list at a lower price. However, if like in SF, some idiot with more money than brains comes along and makes an offer at higher than asking price (to ensure that they get it) - well, can't blame the owner for taking it.

It's a simple matter of looking at a situation and finding your value for it. It's also a matter of understanding what your financial situation is. Not only would I NOT pay $500K for a house in SF, I couldn't afford to buy a home at that price. I can afford a $150K home, but there aren't any in SF (and if there were ... I don't even want to think of the neighborhood or the condition of the house).

Value is in the mind of the person, I fear many people have a (at least to me) perverted scale of value. As for England ... never been there, not sure I'm even interested in visiting. Nice to have you on this board however.

I think the author of the original article is missing the mark by a mile. Stuart Jeffries writes like a person that has no education, no sense of history, and who has completely missed some basic concepts.

Look at the title of the article:

"Money has corrupted us. We no longer understand what it's worth"

Talk about getting it wrong. It is MATERIALISM that has corrupted us. The problem is not that people are under-valuing money, it is that they are OVER-valuing it. And money-worship is just a symptom of materialism.

Look at that headline again. The problem is not that people do not know what "money is worth", the problem is that they are so prone to measure the worth of anything and everything in monetary terms.

Talk about getting the concept backwards. Money isn't "worth" anything, it is just paper that measures DEBT. The problem is that people have lost their perspective and are ignoring the societal and personal/spiritual cost of money-worship.

They journalist sounds like a young kid that has managed to live his whole life without ever having heard about materialism or greed, although society as he knows it is completely saturated with that very same materialism and greed.

Coming from such a background, perhaps the article is not all that bad. He is trying to say something meaningful, but he has not even the most fundamental tools of language to describe the situation. Nor is he quite able to put his finger on what the real problem is.

Guardian journo problemsBigsby says

And in what way are people as badly off as they were before WWII? People are generally far better off than then, and have a far better safety net in place - the obvious example (among many) being the post-war introduction of the NHS.

'When a poor kid stole my iPhone in the street earlier this year, part of me got the theft equivalent of Stockholm syndrome – I felt that I deserved it.'

That does seem to provide a mystery after nearly 70 years of a very generous welfare state which includes healthcare, that so many people still feel needy. The "poor kid" referenced in the article and for whom the author felt such pity had probably been a recipient of public benevolence his entire life, as well as his more than likely never-married mother, so why is he still poor? Could it be the principle of always more, never enough? Maybe there is a clue in the "safety net" itself. It should provide a harbinger and adumbration for the way our country seems to be drifting.

Hi hrhjuliet!
Here is a new one by me.
http://patrick.net/?p=1241650

Many countries got through phases described in real life in history, such as the Roman Empire, and described well by Montesquieu.

That when countries made rich by industriousness lose that industriousness to the politically connected (lobbyist) and their progeny does not have the same innovation or hard work, and this is a trend in such a nation, then that society reaps what it sows (or does not sow).

P N Dr Lo R says

That does seem to provide a mystery after nearly 70 years of a very generous welfare state which includes healthcare, that so many people still feel needy. The "poor kid" referenced in the article and for whom the author felt such pity had probably been a recipient of public benevolence his entire life, as well as his more than likely never-married mother, so why is he still poor? Could it be the principle of always more, never enough? Maybe there is a clue in the "safety net" itself. It should provide a harbinger and adumbration for the way our country seems to be drifting.

Public benevolence? That's an interesting turn of phrase. A little over $80 a week for a 16-24 year-old in income support does not a life of luxury make. And if he's poor, it might well be because opportunities are difficult to come by for many of the young in society these days, especially for those who haven't had the benefits of say a stable and reasonably well off family background.
And I don't think it's a harbinger for the way your country is drifting. Your country could do with a bit more benevolence (as you put it) towards those less fortunate from what I've seen. Images like this strike us Europeans as pretty shocking for such a rich country:

When I lived in England, they had a coal miner strike. They made peanuts.

The ARAB oil embargo was on, so they prepared for gasoline rationing, just like WWII. I saw old timers go to sell their cars at a car auction. Gasoline was very expensive so nobody drove around places and lots of people never owned a car.

England looked poor to me, I could go back to the USA, work at a summer job for awhile and buy an old used car that at least ran. I could afford to put some gas in it and drive. Meanwhile, English young people didn't have them.

They probably also didn't need cars, young in England had little dough so where would they drive to anyway?

Land isn't wealth today, previously it was because land contained game to hunt, trees to cut, and area to farm.

Many people are wealthy today who don't own land, after the economy was industrialized.

Now shares of stock or cash or similar represents wealth.

Some wealth is liquid, some is not.

clambo says

When I lived in England, they had a coal miner strike. They made peanuts.

The ARAB oil embargo was on, so they prepared for gasoline rationing, just like WWII. I saw old timers go to sell their cars at a car auction. Gasoline was very expensive so nobody drove around places and lots of people never owned a car.

I presume you're talking about the strike in the early 70s. Things have changed rather a lot (everywhere) since then.

Bigsby says

Public benevolence? That's an interesting turn of phrase. A little over $80 a week for a 16-24 year-old in income support does not a life of luxury make. And if he's poor, it might well be because opportunities are difficult to come by for many of the young in society these days, especially for those who haven't had the benefits of say a stable and reasonably well off family background.

And I don't think it's a harbinger for the way your country is drifting. Your country could do with a bit more benevolence (as you put it) towards those less fortunate from what I've seen. Images like this strike us Europeans as pretty shocking for such a rich country:

And yet I live here and each and every day meet people who have left socialist (and worse) countries and come to live here. I live in Houston, I work at one of our airports. There are hundreds of cab drivers who can barely speak english (much to the fare's chagrin) and earn money. They are super happy to have the opportunity to work, something that wasn't available to them in their native country. I recently ran across a young man from Canada who is driving 18 wheelers all around the US and earning more and better money than he could in Canada. I ran across a young man from Israel who is making good money as a locksmith, better than what he could in Israel. The cab drivers come from Africa and Muslim countries and without exception they will tell you there is opportunity here, but not where they came from. If you don't like where you're at, the situation that you find yourself in - MOVE. Especially if you are young and have no real reason that is holding you down. There are opportunities, you have to have guts to take advantage of them when they are there. You have to push outside your comfort zone - THAT is the secret.

I fail to see the relevance of that to my post.

Trickle down or Trickle up corruption is viewable, and must be compensated by trickle down economics.

Thus the joy of foreigners here.

A lot of our industries don't produce anything, they just make or move money. And they are becoming our rulers, the banks.

No wonder we are so screwed up.

Bigsby says

I fail to see the relevance of that to my post.

You don't see the relevance? Your posting talked about opportunities. While they may not exist in England, they DO exist in the USA. Again, it's a matter of going where the opportunities are. Don't sit and wait with your hand out expecting that housing, food, healthcare, etc will be provided. No, go where the jobs are, anyone can do it but it's easier when you are young.

mmmarvel says

Bigsby says

I fail to see the relevance of that to my post.

You don't see the relevance? Your posting talked about opportunities. While they may not exist in England, they DO exist in the USA. Again, it's a matter of going where the opportunities are. Don't sit and wait with your hand out expecting that housing, food, healthcare, etc will be provided. No, go where the jobs are, anyone can do it but it's easier when you are young.

The UK's unemployment rate is 6.9%. In the US, it's 7.3%. Every developed country has opportunities and every developed country has poverty. Have you checked your poverty rate recently? Opportunities are easier for some to access than for others. The post was about taking care of those that needed help, and that this wasn't tantamount to putting people on easy street. Like I said, your post bore little relevance to what I was referring to.

Bigsby says

Opportunities are easier for some to access than for others. The post was about taking care of those that needed help

In Hong Kong, the unemployment rate is 3.1% and their safety net is just about zilch. If you're an able bodied person, you are pretty much expected to find a job and fend for yourself. If we (you) are talking about people who are too elderly, too in firmed, have mental or physical problems that's one thing. But far too many (at least in the USA) say things like, "Well, I don't want to do that kind of work" or "I don't want to work those hours (or days)" - and get by with government handouts. Is it the lap of luxury? Far from it, but it becomes a way of life. It becomes a 'get-by' mentality. I don't have to do what I don't want to do because the government will supply and support me until something else, something different, some thing I like falls from the sky. Worse, in too many cases children watch their parents and emulate them, so instead of doing better - they too learn to 'get by'.

Young unemployed people, taking the ones with mental and physical disabilities out of the equation. Could they do something other than waiting for that lightening bolt from the sky that will change their life? Yup, but it takes working and thinking outside the comfort zone. In many cases it will take moving away from family and friends, like the examples I stated in my last posting. It will take living in 'less-than-ideal' circumstances, at least for a while.

Again, if the person has age, mental or physical problems, then most countries can be told that they aren't doing enough. The number of able bodied who live off the system is pathetic. I can't speak for England, but I see and listen to unemployed, under employed people in the USA and many times are sickened by what I see and hear.

Bigsby says

A little over $80 a week for a 16-24 year-old in income support does not a life of luxury make

And why should a 16-24 year old have a life of luxury? $80 a week would seem to be a subsistance amount, but some are satisfied with it. There comes a time when someone has to take a bit of responsibility for their own wellbeing. Another thing people don't consider is that this "poor kid" might have been a complete hellion in school (we already know he's a thief) who terrorized his teachers and classmates when he could have been edifying himself and is instead economically worthless to society--we have many of those in the USA.

mmmarvel says

I can't speak for England, but I see and listen to unemployed, under employed people in the USA and many times are sickened by what I see and hear.

Well Theodore Dalrymple (pseudonym for Anthony Daniels), retired and for over 40 years a prison psychiatrist in London, can and attests to the general degeneration of behavior among the young over the past 35 plus years, the loutishness and barbaric behavior that assaults communities sometimes for entire weekends, the virtual entrenchment of self-destructive behavior in spite of all and every means to prevent it.