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

    • Back on topic (!),  just a reminder that the new incarnation of the ED Forum drinks will be in The Palmerston TOMORROW Wednesday 11 June from 7pm. Turn immediately left as you come in by the main  Lordship Lane entrance, and we will be in the area there. Hope that at least a few of you will be up for getting to know some of your fellow forum members in real life!
    • For the past 15 years, I’ve been subjected to persistent passive-aggressive bullying and harassment by my upstairs neighbours. Their behaviour has included tampering with my plants, opening bin bags and questioning me about their contents, and interfering with misdelivered post — some of which appeared to have been opened. There has also been consistent noise disruption, like loud door banging and deliberately dropping heavy objects. They often laugh or stare at me when I’m in the garden, creating a constant sense of intimidation. Much of their conduct is subtle and hard to prove, often falling into a grey area that could easily be dismissed as paranoia, which makes it even more distressing. In the early years, I sometimes responded, but I realised this only seemed to encourage them. Since then, I’ve tried to remain calm and avoid confrontation — but unfortunately, this seems to have escalated things. After the recent death of a close family member, they left a condolence note, which at first seemed kind — but it came with a request to cut back my laurel bush, which I maintain for privacy, as I often feel watched in my own garden. The timing and nature of the request felt inappropriate. Still, I arranged for a gardening service and slightly reduced the laurel, though likely not as much as they wanted. Shortly after, one neighbour commented on how lovely one of my potted plants looked — which struck me as unusual, since we’ve barely spoken in years. Just days later, they told me the same plant looked like it was dying and asked if they should water it. Soon after, it rapidly turned yellow, brittle, and died — in a way that looked clearly unnatural. From photos, it appears the plant was poisoned, likely with a chemical weed killer. Access to that area is restricted — it’s behind a locked front gate monitored by a Smart CCTV camera. No one else had access, and it would be very difficult for someone to climb over the wall unnoticed. Given the timing and condition of the plant, I strongly suspect it was deliberately poisoned. I brought this up in a chat with my next-door neighbours, and they revealed they’d lost three trees along the same fence line over the past few months. One of them had previously been asked for access to cut back those very trees. One of the affected trees was a mature silver birch, whose sudden death should leave chemical evidence if tested. I’ve reported the incident to the Environment Agency and requested soil testing to check for toxins. The police have also been notified. I’ve installed another CCTV camera for additional monitoring. I’m not looking for confrontation — I just want to live peacefully and without further interference. But their behaviour continues to feel calculated and harassing. Has anyone experienced anything similar? What steps would you recommend next? I feel at a loss as to how to protect my space and sanity.
    • The Post Offcie certify copy documents. Check with whoever needs it if they would be appropriate 
    • https://williambaileysolicitors.co.uk/ William Bailey is a well-established local solicitors firm based in Goose Green I've used them in the past with no complaints
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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