Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We hear this all the time - "the market will decide" - it is an axiom that is rarely questioned.


I've personally never understood it. And, since Lehman Brothers, it appears most financial gurus don't have a clue either.


Let's take what's happening in the Eurozone presently and Hugenot's worries. Why is Italy next? And after Italy is destroyed - Spain, France?


Who are these faceless people making these decisions that can bring down whole governments, countries? Who elected them?


It occurs to me if Greece can have 50% of its debts written off why don't we do bit of lateral thinking here?


Instead of paying billions to bail out these countries why don't we say all credit card bills are frozen for, say, three years, mortgage interest payments frozen for three years and so on.


This potentially frees up billions of pounds that can be spent in the economy guaranteeing jobs and kick starting the economy - so what if Visa take a hit for example - at the moment companies such as Visa with interest rates of around 19% are enslaving people and hampering any recovery.


Am I being totally naive?

I guess the market is a loose term for anyone involved in a transaction. It's basically a statement that empowers the population at the same time as abdicating responsibility for social consequences.


Whilst I'm not totalitarian, I simply don't trust markets - particularly those where there are too few buyers or sellers, and potential for cartel behaviour.


People in general don't have enough information or experience to come to appropriate solutions, and they don't behave rationally. We vote for people who promise things that cannot be delivered, deny obvious problems to lessen our guilt, and jump off proverbial cliffs just to be part of the gang.

Governments don't trust "the market" either, which is why we don't have a pure market economy.


Silverfox, I'm afraid you are being rather naive... allowing people not to pay off their debts would cause havoc in the economy which would far outweigh any peripheral release of cash.

Free markets usually provide an efficient 'price discovery' mechanism. During periods of QE and/or massive government and regulatory intervention, those markets can no longer be considered 'free'. Hence the wild volatility and whipsawing gyrations we are presently experiencing. Today's markets are not rational. Most naked traders and speculators are being slaughtered out there at the moment. Interesting times.

I doubt that!


Adam Smith's free market invisible hand - that results in the selfish actions of an individual driving the general good - is dependent upon the assumption that an individual can and will act in his own best interests.


However, it's not part of human nature to act so independently. Humans act irrationally, are poorly informed with limited analytical capacity, and tend toward mob behaviour based on emotion rather the 'supply and demand' economics.


The housing disaster was empowered by bezerk humans engorging themselves in in an unregulated market. That's the free market for you.

It needs to be said that consumers have to hold their hands up for the part they played in this - they did want all of those things and gorged themselves when available


But as I've said before - that always has been the case. It's why certain institutions were given the keys to the cake-tin. It was their job to say no. Instead they abdicated responsibility because it made more money to say yes


So we consumers - never trust us. We are two-face liers. Always have been and always will be. But when we collectively put mechanisms in place they should be accountable


(no good a junkie giving his money to a dealer to avoid having money for drugs)

Actually, the only markets that 'collapsed' during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 were those dealing in unregulated, private, inter-bank and OTC debt-based securities.


The problem there was no transparent price discovery mechanism ? there were no true free market forces in play.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The housing disaster was empowered by bezerk

> humans engorging themselves in in an unregulated

> market. That's the free market for you.


There is a huge difference between a market governed by true market forces and a market that is an unregulated free-for-all.


Just to amplify what I wrote in an earlier post, after 911, US house prices were no longer subject to free market forces because interest rates were set by government policy regardless of supply and demand considerations.


So, the US housing market was not a true free market in the run up to the GFC of 2008.


In that sense, 911 could be identified as the principal catalyst that precipitated our present financial predicament.

I thought that was Adam Smith's definition?


Yes, but...you were describing an asset price bubble.


According to Smith, free market forces are socially beneficial only when the necessary conditions include appropriate incentives, effective competition, safeguards against exploitation, regulation, honest participants, protection against malfeasance and so on.


I not sure there is anything in Smith's Wealth of Nations that presages recent economic developments, though.

'The market will decide' is just a tool similar to consensus. The main problem is that some people have more money than others.


Anyway, I view the term 'the market will decide' as total bullsh!t as I think many of the commentators just makes up the commentary on the spot. Just like Hugo!

Since a commentary is a view on unfolding events, by definition it has to be created 'on the spot'.


If you can't express a view without making an unprompted personal attack on someone who disagrees with you then that's called 'inadequate'.


If you are rolling out concepts that you've established before irrespective of, and unaffected by current events then that's called 'dogma'.


If you are repeating foolish ideas that talk about the end of society and apocalyptic scenarios then that's called 'puerile onanism'.


I'll leave it to readers to decide if they've seen any inadequate dogmatic puerile onanism on the forum.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Chains moving in is a sure sign that LL is heading for a fall. They are parasites, waiting for the independents to be successful and then, in partnership with rapacious landlords, they move in and force out those very businesses who have created the market they then seek to exploit. They replace a lively diversity with a bland and predictable offering. Then, when a downturn arrives, they move out, leaving boarded up premises and charity shops. Independent businesses who have worked hard to make a success of their efforts will try to see out hard times as they’ve invested so much. Chains look only at the bottom line and think nothing of closing branches. Chains are liable also to expand too fast, be managed badly and then collapse. Think of Brick House being forced out by Gail’s, the closure of White Stuff (although that chain was replaced by another) and JoJo Maman Bebe. . Sadly, I fear that will be the future of LL. 
    • It’s the impact the festival has on the community, the people living next door to the park who have to endure the thumping music and worse. Then there’s the park and the state it’s left in and the wildlife, especially nesting birds. All the roads going down Denmark Hill towards the park were closed off and roads off half moon lane and going up towards West Norwood closed off with wardens at each end, who were paid by Lambeth Council to stand there for the 4 days.  The festival made the news channels and interviews suggested most of the people attending weren’t fron the local area but places like Ireland and Scotland.  I live a 20 minute walk from the park and could hear the thumping music all day and night. Also the wind certainly carried the smell of drugs to my garden! For 4 days I couldn’t believe how strong it was. 
    • Emirates Stadium is  >60,00 but they tend to be very quiet 🙂 Jokes aside though, it's a case in point. Highbury was <40,000 and was 300M up the road, so there are definitely Islington residents who used to live half a mile from a fairly big football stadium, and now live right by a massive one. One that holds rock/pop concerts too accomodating 70,000 fans whether they like ot or not.   40% of Islington households are in social housing so regardless of when they moved their current homes, they may have had little say in exactly where they are housed.   
    • St Christopher's only take books in perfect condition. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...