Absolutely Anything Else

SimonTrew wrote:

Oh cointreau,  you can make money by betting on the horses if you can time your bets right etc etc. You can do arbitrage exactly as arbitrageurs do on the stock market, but like arbitrage there, you have to bet a lot of money to make a small fraction. You can do it but it is a full time job with very low margins. The people who do it successfully sell their perfectly valid systems as a sideline to make up for the fact that while mathematically sound they don't make a fortune out of it.

But the surefire way for winning at bets on the horses is to make sure that you are the bookmaker.

I was just using FB as an example of course. FB is worth what someone will pay for it, just like anything else. At least you can sell the dead horse to Pedigree Petfoods, or the French. It is still an asset.

I don't think arbitrage comes into horses.  It's not like it's based on any thing which can be modelled sufficiently.  The horse race is played out in minutes but the stockmarket works over magnitudes of time and diversity.  As you said, the bookie balances out but the intangible asset value in say a brand of a particular nag is not captured at the end of the race.  The transaction is over when the the race is over.

As far as being an asset, the dead horse is of course worth something to the owner who passes to the French for sandwiches but to the gambler, it's worth nothing since a bet (mostly) has not landed him any market value, either as dog food or glue. 

So it's not the same - even shareholders might get back something on the pound (one of which today would buy you a set of DIY Homebase shops).

SimonTrew wrote:

No, they print money which does not create value. It just creates money. When you print money, there is lots more money, that is, you have reduced the scarcity of money, you have increased the money supply. The demand will do the usual thing to match the supply, and lo and behold, all the money is worth less. Think the Hungarian filler, think the Continental dollar, think  the ruble when Russia woke up to find it had thirteen independent central banks on its doorstep all capable of printing rubles, think the Euro in Greece and Spain and Italy, bailed out by Germany but for how long? Think "that does not mean that the pound in your pocket, or your wallet or your purse, is worth less" (Prime Minister Harold Wilson on devaluation in 1967 was it?). What was it called last time? Quantitive easing i.e. devaluation. You can make cash by counterfeiting it, but you can't make money by printing it. It just makes all the money worth less........................Inflation is a tax on the prudent,

Going down that inflation route is not as quite the track I was thinking of.  There are multiple variables and I think that's not as simple as it seems. 

The money printed at the central bank is mechanism of exchange. So the banks have to buy the money from the central bank and they transfer assets, i.e. it could be give me 1 tonne of gold and I'll give you some paper money I've just printed. You can also give me some USD or diamonds or oil for the paper.   They don't give it away nor do they sit on it.

So it has actually created value but of course it's only value to someone who wants it.  It's a bit like finding 1 billion USD in the back of a truck in the middle of a zombie apocalypse. It's just paper good for starting fires. But if you can really buy stuff with it...it does have value.

Here's something which might cooked my noddle when I looked into it sometime ago. It might cook your noddle a bit as well.  Using bonds, one can actually bid effectively on the value of money.  Government might say, we want 1 billion USD, who will give us that?  And banks will say, we'll do it and you pay us back 1.1 billion in 5 years. Therefore we'll have X million each year, paid quarterly.  And the government agrees. So effectively what they've done is bet that government will pay more than inflation and therefore the value of money, e.g yield of Y percent.  Obviously  government will pay, so this is a cast iron investment.  Stepping up the next level, one can hold an auction on the value of money.  I found that quite hard to believe but it happens all the time. 

As for quantative easing this is where the confidence comes in.  They were able to make cash more freely available to help lubricate the wheels of the economy, i.e. money was more available.  But that alone is not inflationary if its coupled with interest rate reductions.

That leads to the question whether interest rates include inflation - generally, yes I think it does.

It seems in that injection of cash in that UK case, hardly made a difference in the overall scheme of things and since it forced interest rates down (as banks had to work harder to lend and could only put down their rates on a reduced BoE base rate) Therefore it should also have reduced inflation.  It was unknown territory at the time and luckily for them they pulled it off.

But while I'm ranting a bit, that one eyed git Brown sold all the gold off for about 1/3 of its value.  What an absolute plonker.  And I'm being nice about it.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I don't think arbitrage comes into horses.

I"m not talking about horseracing in particular, just shaving with Occam's razor.

There are certainly cases when the book gets overbroke and you can bet every horse in the race and be sure to win They are rare but they happen  as the book is moving quickly. I don't know that would strictly be a case of arbitrage. But more often if different bookmakers are offering different prices you can find a gap where you can do it. You have to be shrewd and quick, but you can do it. And that is arbitrage.

I had a position like that in the last but two (I think) FIFA world cup. Because I had taken an early price on two of the teams who made the quarter finals, I could back the other two and be guaranteed a win (including paying for the losing bets of course).

fluffy2560 wrote:

It's not like it's based on any thing which can be modelled sufficiently.

What do you think racing tipsters do?

fluffy2560 wrote:

The horse race is played out in minutes but the stockmarket works over magnitudes of time and diversity.

A horse has form, i.e, past performance. Even in a maiden stakes.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The transaction is over when the the race is over.

That would only be true if one assumed all the horses were somehow alloted to races at random, and that people don"t follow particular horses or stables or jockeys. In fact the transaction is long-lasting in exactly the way you describe. Leaving aside betting opportunities for cross doubles, trifectas and the like which of course span more than one race. Quite often people will back a horse at the National that did well in the Cheltenham Gold Cup the previous year.  That the individual transactions are not formally linked together is irrelevant.

fluffy2560 wrote:

As far as being an asset, the dead horse is of course worth something to the owner who passes to the French for sandwiches but to the gambler, it's worth nothing since a bet (mostly) has not landed him any market value, either as dog food or glue.

Depends. The punter should get his stake returned if he bet starting price. If he bet ante post (took the price), the stake is lost, that is part of the risk of taking the price. On the plus side, all that he has lost is the stake. He has not found himself in debt for more than that, as can happen on the stock market e.g. with reinsurance/underwriting such as the Lloyds "names", or on the futures market and other derivative markets.

fluffy2560 wrote:

So it's not the same - even shareholders might get back something on the pound (one of which today would buy you a set of DIY Homebase shops).

A pound and a lot of debt (I presume I only caught the headline briefly). The punter loses his pound, and only his pound. In that perversion of justice, the limited liability company, the shareholder is somewhat insulated from the company's debts, but not totally. There is a reason penny shares are so cheap.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Going down that inflation route is not as quite the track I was thinking of.  There are multiple variables and I think that's not as simple as it seems.

I never said it was simple. The fact that inflation erodes the value of money would seem to be almost a tautology, though,.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The money printed at the central bank is mechanism of exchange. They don't give it away nor do they sit on it.

They do give it away.  Or, to put it more correctly, they sell it at a discount.

fluffy2560 wrote:

So it has actually created value

No, it has created money. The amount of value remains the same, so all the money becomes worth less.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Using bonds, one can actually bid effectively on the value of money.

Yes. Again, a bond is essentially just selling tomorrow's money at a discount. Using almost any other financial instrument or commodity, one can also actually bid effectively on the value of money. Any exchange involving money implicitly assesses the value of that money. Essentially, money is always at auction. Who here will give me the most altarian dollars (or bananas or hugs) for my pound? That is how much my pound is worth here today.

that one eyed git Brown sold all the gold off for about 1/3 of its value.  What an absolute plonker.  And I'm being nice about it.

He sold it for exactly what he thought it was worth, i.e. its value to him. Unfortunately it was only about a third of its value to almost anybody else.

fluffy2560 wrote:

As for quantative easing this is where the confidence comes in.  They were able to make cash more freely available to help lubricate the wheels of the economy, i.e. money was more available.  But that alone is not inflationary if its coupled with interest rate reductions.

It seems in that injection of cash in that UK case, hardly made a difference in the overall scheme of things and since it forced interest rates down (as banks had to work harder to lend and could only put down their rates on a reduced BoE base rate)

That has little to do with interest rate reductions. Interest rate reductions are themselves usually inflationary in that it gives people more disposable income. What really reduced the money supply was the requirement that banks actually had a fair chunk of real capital to back them so that they didn't keep going bust every time someone tried to withdraw a fiver. That restricted their ability to lend and thus reduced the amount of money in the marketplace.

Even with that, the very low interest rates have of course been extremely inflationary in the UK housing market. (And in Hungary as well,  but much less so, because of the fallout of all those Swiss Franc mortgages)

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

It's not like it's based on any thing which can be modelled sufficiently.

What do you think racing tipsters do?

A horse has form, i.e, past performance. Even in a maiden stakes.

Complex posting.....

First of all, I know nothing about horses, casinos, games of chance, lotteries and all that stuff.

Tipsters are like economists except that tipsters have got funny hats and mutton chops whereas economists have got legit degrees. Tipsters (shares and horses) are probably just about as good as random guessing over the longer term and wide diversity.   At least with stocks, you've got better and more historical form and various metrics to work with.  A horse has about maybe 10 years of racing to make that form but a business (usually) has years of historical performance.  There are outliers of course.

The gee gees are not affected by the economy whereas within limits random guessing in a rising market is always going to produce a return regardless of what you do.  The UK property market is a good example (and also an example of opportunity cost).   

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

The transaction is over when the the race is over.

That would only be true if one assumed all the horses were somehow alloted to races at random, and that people don"t follow particular horses or stables or jockeys. In fact the transaction is long-lasting in exactly the way you describe. Leaving aside betting opportunities for cross doubles, trifectas and the like which of course span more than one race. Quite often people will back a horse at the National that did well in the Cheltenham Gold Cup the previous year.  That the individual transactions are not formally linked together is irrelevant.

Why would that be true? I don't know how they allocate the horses but if I'm a "scientific" punter, I'd look across all the market (all races) and bet across all of them making allocations irrelevant.  That's more or less the same as the stockmarket except you have more info on the stockmarket.

But following particular horses or even football teams is leading to a causal fallacy.  I did well on that race so I will do well on the other.  I ate a burger I found in the trash bin while on bus 22 and got sick, therefore I should not eat on a bus 22 as it will make me ill. 

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

As far as being an asset, the dead horse is of course worth something to the owner who passes to the French for sandwiches but to the gambler, it's worth nothing since a bet (mostly) has not landed him any market value, either as dog food or glue.

Depends. The punter should get his stake returned if he bet starting price. If he bet ante post (took the price), the stake is lost, that is part of the risk of taking the price. On the plus side, all that he has lost is the stake. He has not found himself in debt for more than that, as can happen on the stock market e.g. with reinsurance/underwriting such as the Lloyds "names", or on the futures market and other derivative markets.

Ok, I don't know about the types of bet but presumably there are parallels on call/put options etc.  But re: the dog food, as I said, there's no share in the underlying assets so that's not an investment.  To me, the bet seems pointless at best. 

What might be better is to horse bond. That would work better than just gambling and still have that element of risk albeit with less dopamine. 

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

So it's not the same - even shareholders might get back something on the pound (one of which today would buy you a set of DIY Homebase shops).

A pound and a lot of debt (I presume I only caught the headline briefly). The punter loses his pound, and only his pound. In that perversion of justice, the limited liability company, the shareholder is somewhat insulated from the company's debts, but not totally. There is a reason penny shares are so cheap.

Homebase: I think there are underlying assets - perhaps property and other things.  The new owners, if they turn it around, they'll get 80% of the sale price whereas the sellers (for £1) will get 20%. 

Having run various companies when it was more a free for all and less corporate responsibility, limited liability companies were great.

The value in penny shares depends on jurisdiction as far as I know.  The USA has more penny shares as a corporation (as far as I know) has to have public subscribers whereas UK Limited Liability companies (or example) are closed.  But in any case it's easy to see more risk  by basic indicator checks like assets/liabilities, margins and so on.  What risk indicators do you get on horses?

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Going down that inflation route is not as quite the track I was thinking of.  There are multiple variables and I think that's not as simple as it seems.

I never said it was simple. The fact that inflation erodes the value of money would seem to be almost a tautology, though,.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The money printed at the central bank is mechanism of exchange. They don't give it away nor do they sit on it.

They do give it away.  Or, to put it more correctly, they sell it at a discount.

fluffy2560 wrote:

So it has actually created value

No, it has created money. The amount of value remains the same, so all the money becomes worth less.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Using bonds, one can actually bid effectively on the value of money.

Yes. Again, a bond is essentially just selling tomorrow's money at a discount. Using almost any other financial instrument or commodity, one can also actually bid effectively on the value of money. Any exchange involving money implicitly assesses the value of that money. Essentially, money is always at auction. Who here will give me the most altarian dollars (or bananas or hugs) for my pound? That is how much my pound is worth here today.

Printing money does not necessarily lead to money being worth less. It depends on the economy and what the interest rate is (i.e. effectively the underlying asset - parallels of Bitcoin here).

I think there's some confusion here in the terms money and value and I got the impression you were saying that money is intrinsically valueless (it's a long post, I am not sure if you or I have already contradicted ourselves in rambling).

But as you said, clearly as a medium of exchange, in a normal economy, money has value otherwise no-one would use it.  The fact that I can trade the money for something else means it has to have value (even if that value is stored indirectly in the belief in the economy as per UK or ultimately elsewhere the gold bars in the Fort Knox vault).   

But the final beef on this, ultimately then, if there is no value, what would be the point and how do central banks reconcile a profit from the difference in costs of printing the dosh and being able to use it for exchange?  And why even have the concept of Seigniorage at its simplest?

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

that one eyed git Brown sold all the gold off for about 1/3 of its value.  What an absolute plonker.  And I'm being nice about it.

He sold it for exactly what he thought it was worth, i.e. its value to him. Unfortunately it was only about a third of its value to almost anybody else.

I could get really abusive about that bloke.  How much did he lose? £5 billion.  Sold about $300/oz in 2009 and if he'd waited 2 years and hedged his bets and sold it in tranches, his overall return would have been higher.  It was about $1700/oz by 2011.  He sold about 500 tonnes.

My sister was a smart lady, had a I.Q. of over 145 and worked in all sorts of businesses in her short lifetime.
Personal secretary jobs, ran the office for 2 Encino based CPA's told them both off too when they asked her to pick up their dry cleaning.This was in the days of office workers making coffee and doing personal errands for their bosses, she never did anything extra then her job she was hired for.
Gave them a huge No way, get your wife to do it, never got fired because she actually just about ran the place for them, they were not about to let her go for her attitude, no matter she was at the front desk with purple hair filing her nails ... She had it all under control.
With all that going for her, she enjoyed being with animals more then anything else.
Taught herself how to barrel race and competed ,always had "odd" pets like Lop eared bunnies or large breed dogs around her.
She could "talk" to the animals or so she said.
She should of become a vet but she moved through life too fast to study or sit still.
The last year of her life, she just quit everything, dumped her insane BF moved from LA to New Mexico and got hired working in the horse stables as a groomer for the New Mexico Downs race track.
She loved it, the money wasn't there but she was never motivated by that. Had chances to marry very wealthy men in her past and couldn't care less about their bank accounts. A bit too late to worry about material gain at that point anyways, She knew she was in bad health.
Time to do something really fun for herself, working with horses made her happy.
So the "horse whisper" in her told me that the horses already know how they feel before each race, some are just not in the mood that day. Just like a person, have good days and bad ones.
She often told the owners that their horse was not going to place that day, of course they were greedy and never took her advice.
She never bet on any of her "buddies" but easily could have made a killing.
I enjoy watching them run but really not into betting on them either. Dog races upset me allot, saw one in FL. and my husband placed a bet and won. Think it was just a $5. bet and he walked away with $70. or so.
I felt mad at him, not sure why but don't think they really like living as a
commodity. Dogs need homes not cages.
Oh, forgot when I was 14-15 my sister and her husband lived on a horse ranch in Ojai, Ca.
2 lawyers had a weekend ranch with 6 retired race horses on the property.
My sister lived near the stables in a home for the caretaker.
That was probably one of the most fun times of her life, access 24 hours a day to ridding and hanging with horses.
Too bad her ex blew that gig by turning one of the owners teen sons onto some smoke. Dummy.

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

As for quantative easing this is where the confidence comes in.  They were able to make cash more freely available to help lubricate the wheels of the economy, i.e. money was more available.  But that alone is not inflationary if its coupled with interest rate reductions.

It seems in that injection of cash in that UK case, hardly made a difference in the overall scheme of things and since it forced interest rates down (as banks had to work harder to lend and could only put down their rates on a reduced BoE base rate)

That has little to do with interest rate reductions. Interest rate reductions are themselves usually inflationary in that it gives people more disposable income. What really reduced the money supply was the requirement that banks actually had a fair chunk of real capital to back them so that they didn't keep going bust every time someone tried to withdraw a fiver. That restricted their ability to lend and thus reduced the amount of money in the marketplace.

Even with that, the very low interest rates have of course been extremely inflationary in the UK housing market. (And in Hungary as well,  but much less so, because of the fallout of all those Swiss Franc mortgages)

Why is more disposable income inflationary?   This is actually a spending boost to the economy.  It's only inflationary if prices are rising more than increasing income.  So that's just a reflection of the economy.   

Assuming there's no negligence (bad investments), banks have to have sufficient coverage of their immediate cash needs but that all goes wrong if their underlying assets are not sufficiently liquid.

All things being equal, the banks ain't going bust if someone takes 1000 HUF out the ATM, it's just that they just do not have liquidity to cover their day to day needs.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....
She could "talk" to the animals or so she said.
She should of become a vet but she moved through life too fast to study or sit still.
The last year of her life, she just quit everything, dumped her insane BF moved from LA to New Mexico and got hired working in the horse stables as a groomer for the New Mexico Downs race track.
She loved it, the money wasn't there but she was never motivated by that. Had chances to marry very wealthy men in her past and couldn't care less about their bank accounts. A bit too late to worry about material gain at that point anyways, She knew she was in bad health.
Time to do something really fun for herself, working with horses made her happy.
So the "horse whisper" in her told me that the horses already know how they feel before each race, some are just not in the mood that day. Just like a person, have good days and bad ones.
She often told the owners that their horse was not going to place that day, of course they were greedy and never took her advice.
She never bet on any of her "buddies" but easily could have made a killing.
I enjoy watching them run but really not into betting on them either. Dog races upset me allot, saw one in FL. and my husband placed a bet and won. Think it was just a $5. bet and he walked away with $70. or so.
I felt mad at him, not sure why but don't think they really like living as a
commodity. Dogs need homes not cages.
Oh, forgot when I was 14-15 my sister and her husband lived on a horse ranch in Ojai, Ca.
2 lawyers had a weekend ranch with 6 retired race horses on the property.
My sister lived near the stables in a home for the caretaker.
That was probably one of the most fun times of her life, access 24 hours a day to ridding and hanging with horses.
Too bad her ex blew that gig by turning one of the owners teen sons onto some smoke. Dummy.

Dr Dolittle would always have a job.  Our neighbour in Austria said she could speak to animals. I didn't know if I should laugh or cry.  Being polite, I nodded as if in agreement about her dog telling her about her day.  But I was thinking, jeez, get some help as you've got more problems than you can cope with.

I don't know what it is about horses but people seem to go bonkers about them and imbue all sorts of human attributes to them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism).  I just see a large and potentially dangerous animal.  I don't see any more intelligence than a cow or a sheep.

Dogs and cats I can see are living in symbiosis with humans.  Dogs need humans and vice-versa.  Same with cats. It's a very long lasting trade.  Horses, cows, pigs I think are something else.

As for dog racing, some dogs like to race as that's what they are made for.  In the UK we have sheepdog trials.  The dogs seem to like it as much as the owners/spectators.  So not all bad.

One of my  many cousins lives in Georgia,
She and her husband have 2 dogs that compete in dog shows all over the US.
Both of her dogs are often seen on animal planet with the Purina Dog competitions. The Incredible Dog Trials, or some such title.
She is posting several times a week on FB all the ribbons, awards, even has professional photo lay outs done with both her dogs, Like her spoiled over indulged children.
Had special made costums for them for every holiday, just nutty stuff.
Video's posted all the time of their workouts,
Birthday parties for her dogs with special made pet cakes, I mean I've never even had such a party for my BD that her dogs get.
Razzles in the name of one of her dogs,guess that's the more "famous" of the two.
Not sure exactly what she and her husband do for a living, something that makes a ton of money judging by their house on a private lake and all the set up with those dogs. Lots of money spent on traveling with them and hotel rooms.
It's obvious without saying, they do not have any "human" children.
Those 2 dogs live a more exciting life then most people do.
At least they are spoiled half to death but those poor greyhounds in racing don't have homes, they live on the race grounds.
Makes me sad.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

One of my  many cousins lives in Georgia,
She and her husband have 2 dogs that compete in dog shows all over the US.
Both of her dogs are often seen on animal planet with the Purina Dog competitions. The Incredible Dog Trials, or some such title.
She is posting several times a week on FB all the ribbons, awards, even has professional photo lay outs done with both her dogs, Like her spoiled over indulged children.
Had special made costums for them for every holiday, just nutty stuff.
....Razzles in the name of one of her dogs,guess that's the more "famous" of the two.
Not sure exactly what she and her husband do for a living, something that makes a ton of money judging by their house on a private lake and all the set up with those dogs. Lots of money spent on traveling with them and hotel rooms.
It's obvious without saying, they do not have any "human" children.
Those 2 dogs live a more exciting life then most people do.....

Well that's what they are, furry children for childless couples.  I believe that's what they say hereabouts. Furry kids, furry grandkids etc*. 

I suppose it works for them and real children are much harder work.  I am quite sure the dogs would eat them quite happily if they were even just a bit hungry but I don't think real children would eat their parents unless they were crashed on a mountain in the Andes and even then, maybe not.  Well not without enough ketchup anyway.

*I'm not denigrating people not having children. People have all sorts of circumstances that result in  not having any kids.  I notice I know more of them than I used to though.

Well as my husband often says, he wishes he had a crystal ball to know which sort of personality our son would have before he was born.
How rude... My husband is a very serious minded person and our boy... well let's just say he lives in another world. He is our world though no matter how strange he can be.
My mom had 6 children and out of that large brood only 3 of us had a child and only one each .
Not very good odds for mom to be ,"reincarnated" into a grandchild... One way of thinking anyways.
My older sister wants my husband and i to live with her.
Not so sure that's a good idea, her and her 3 "furry kids" make that 4 with the cat and then there's the bird... I can't see us giving up a sitting space for a dog who has to lay on the couch... We like animals but not that much.
She never wanted children, always disliked them and was open about it too. Good thing I suppose, at least she didn't make a person miserable.
There are allot more childless couples these days, or people are waiting longer to start families, not sure.
My mom's sister was 28 when she married and then started her family. Back in the mid 1950s it was considered old at 28 to not be a married lady...
Times do change.

I looked up my cousins site on FB, seems her other dog is, Pippa Rose.
They just had a photo shoot from a event called, "Woofstock" for all those Hippie dogs out there!
I am I crazy or is the world gone insane? I do wonder at times.

My mom had a friend in Ca. who was extremely over the top with her dogs.
She never had children but she was married for many years to her "obedient" husband.
Had to mention it like that as he worked while she was a spoiled lady who pampered her dogs all day long at home.
Very odd lady, had helped her dad in Virgina in the 1930's by climbing trees to see if the coppers were coming or not. He brewed his own White Lighting  to get by. Depression hit hard in them there hills.
She later was a sex slave in a hotel room, some man kidnapped her and locked her in a room for weeks.
She finally jumped out the open window and broke both of her legs on escape.
She had been very pretty in her youth , a red headed lady.
When we met her she was living in a time warp of her own doing. One of those nice but crazy old ladies with the overdone flaming red hair out of a bottle, white pancake face with bright red lipstick and ultra sweet perfume on. Classic crazy old lady look.
Anyway could go on forever about her, long story made shorter.
When one of her dogs passed on she held a full on funeral for it.
My mom was one of the only mourners at the dogie funeral home.
Very nice craved casket with silk pillow and little blankie for Rover. Music and candles the whole shebang.
Sad that she put so much time and love into a creature that can't live longer then the decade and a half that most dogs do.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Using bonds, one can actually bid effectively on the value of money.  Government might say, we want 1 billion USD, who will give us that?  And banks will say, we'll do it and you pay us back 1.1 billion in 5 years. Therefore we'll have X million each year, paid quarterly.  And the government agrees. So effectively what they've done is bet that government will pay more than inflation and therefore the value of money, e.g yield of Y percent.  Obviously  government will pay, so this is a cast iron investment.

Even cast iron can break:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine … tructuring

Funny how bent out of shape so called "investors" (which I define as people who put their capital at risk with no real "iron clad" guarantee of repayment), are still about demanding 100% return on their bond investment. All because it is based on an artifact of the monetary system: Which, being a more or less completely invented and make believe system, has its own set of rules to benefit their own rule makers in areas they so define.

P.S. Governments don't really pay off debts, the tax payers do. And hard to find many politicians who had any part at all of their personal fortunes seized to pay off debts they drove a country into during their tenure. Voted out of office? Phft. That means nothing. Only shortens their span of self enrichment off the public. They still get their government pension, get to keep their wealth amassed during office, and live well in early retirement.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Stepping up the next level, one can hold an auction on the value of money.  I found that quite hard to believe but it happens all the time.

"Currency" went off gold and silver standards a long time ago. Currency is now a commodity. Because those who deal with currency say so. Because that way they have another make believe market to play with and can amass and direct more of that currency to themselves without any real work.

P.S. For years I worked in the financial sector. I really did chuckle about it all while making my money. It really is a wonderful invention (cough) scam (cough) on so many levels.

Well they are setting up outside our street once again to film another straight to DVD movie.
Not sure why they have used this street so many times.
Guess the mayor found a good way to make a few bucks for the district.
Today is set up, making people remove their parked cars, tomorrow should be a filming day and the next day too.
Sort of annoying because it's not possible to open the windows while they are shooting outside.
Would be ok but they are also painting the yard of our building so the front windows have to stay shut too.
Guess I'll be clearing out the few days to avoid all this "excitement".

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Well as my husband often says, he wishes he had a crystal ball to know which sort of personality our son would have before he was born.
How rude... My husband is a very serious minded person and our boy... well let's just say he lives in another world. He is our world though no matter how strange he can be.
.....
She never wanted children, always disliked them and was open about it too. Good thing I suppose, at least she didn't make a person miserable.
There are allot more childless couples these days, or people are waiting longer to start families, not sure.
My mom's sister was 28 when she married and then started her family. Back in the mid 1950s it was considered old at 28 to not be a married lady...
Times do change.
......
When one of her dogs passed on she held a full on funeral for it.
My mom was one of the only mourners at the dogie funeral home.
Very nice craved casket with silk pillow and little blankie for Rover. Music and candles the whole shebang.
Sad that she put so much time and love into a creature that can't live longer then the decade and a half that most dogs do.

Well, isn't that one of the good things about having some kids? You never know what kind of surprise you will get.  And of course, that's another thing about kids - Mum and Dad always will love them (ok, some exceptions).

Luckily, of my four kids, only one of them is a bit odd in a less desirable way. Which isn't a bad result on average.  But not odd in a bad way. I'm an aspiring eccentric myself but I'm not smart enough to be a mad genius.   One of them is rather odd in a really good way - just pouring out creativity and lateral thinking - so long as it's funneled into good things.  I think we're quite pleased about it.  At the moment anyway as still on the rails and quite entertaining. 

I don't know why people choose not to have  kids if they have sufficiently good circumstances. They really can be both fun and a nightmare at the same time but they certainly do make life more interesting.  A woman I know had a terrible childhood so never wanted any kids to be at risk. Another woman had a long term relationship which broke up and by the time that happened, she was too old really so decided not to.  Yet another one just hadn't found anyone and spent a lot of time complaining about it.  In that last case, there's almost no excuse as there's always the turkey baster and mail order supplies from Denmark (route highly favoured by lesbians).  Or even getting smashed at the office party - but that's almost like mugging someone unless they are willing to be mugged (yes, Mrs Fluffy you know who you are in your little red dress). 

Putting your dog in a casket is ridiculous and not very green.  Better off wrapping it up in a bedsheet (if fancy) and putting it into the ground.  I don't think the dog cared about its life much anyway.   There's a pet cemetery on the highway to Vienna. It's on the right hand side just after you pass the Sopron junction, direction of Budapest.  It's right next to the road.  It's very noticeable because it's rather small but it still has headstones etc. 


 

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Well they are setting up outside our street once again to film another straight to DVD movie.
Not sure why they have used this street so many times.
Guess the mayor found a good way to make a few bucks for the district.
Today is set up, making people remove their parked cars, tomorrow should be a filming day and the next day too.
Sort of annoying because it's not possible to open the windows while they are shooting outside.
Would be ok but they are also painting the yard of our building so the front windows have to stay shut too.
Guess I'll be clearing out the few days to avoid all this "excitement".

You could be an extra.  Bit of interest and cash and work from home. Result!

fluffy2560 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Well they are setting up outside our street once again to film another straight to DVD movie.
Not sure why they have used this street so many times.
Guess the mayor found a good way to make a few bucks for the district.
Today is set up, making people remove their parked cars, tomorrow should be a filming day and the next day too.
Sort of annoying because it's not possible to open the windows while they are shooting outside.
Would be ok but they are also painting the yard of our building so the front windows have to stay shut too.
Guess I'll be clearing out the few days to avoid all this "excitement".

You could be an extra.  Bit of interest and cash and work from home. Result!

Think one would have to already be on the "list" before production started to be a extra.
Still waiting and waiting for those couple of western films my bro and SIL are in.
They have speaking roles so not extras but also not stars in any way.
They sometimes mention they are doing a bit of work here and there on weekends to wrap up the filming. Not sure how that is going to look as my SIL has lost about 30 lbs. since the beginning of the filming. She is dressed up like a saloon moll so not going to be able to hide the weight loss.
Don't think she wants to get fat for the film.
Speaking of filming and racing horses.
Anyone ever been over to Kincsem race track here in Budapest?
It's a relaxing time bets are not very much if you're into betting on the horses.'Small booths to buy drinks and watch the horses, not overly fancy dress either.
Once in awhile they have race dress up days with fancy hats but normally it's casual dress.
I have not seen the movie made about the Hungarian race horse, Kincsem,plan on it as soon as I see it on Netflix or even in the movie house here in Hungary, haven't noticed it playing in Hungary at all just yet.

klsallee wrote:

.....
P.S. Governments don't really pay off debts, the tax payers do. And hard to find many politicians who had any part at all of their personal fortunes seized to pay off debts they drove a country into during their tenure. Voted out of office? Phft. That means nothing. Only shortens their span of self enrichment off the public. They still get their government pension, get to keep their wealth amassed during office, and live well in early retirement.

Yes, that's very true but I'd extend that to citizens to include sale of the county's wealth - like selling licenses to mine or extract oil.  Lots of politicians are also immune from prosecution after their terms for things they did in their job but not personally (yes, you Donald). 

klsallee wrote:

.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Stepping up the next level, one can hold an auction on the value of money.  I found that quite hard to believe but it happens all the time.

"Currency" went off gold and silver standards a long time ago. Currency is now a commodity. Because those who deal with currency say so. Because that way they have another make believe market to play with and can amass and direct more of that currency to themselves without any real work.

P.S. For years I worked in the financial sector. I really did chuckle about it all while making my money. It really is a wonderful invention (cough) scam (cough) on so many levels.

Yes, owning a bank is really profitable.  People give you their money and you lend it to other people while charging all of them for the privilege.  Nice job.

Not everyone has disposed of their gold.  Quite a few central banks still have reserves in gold and active trading due to the nature of their economies. From what I've seen, it looks like mainly where they have gold mining unless that's coincidence.  But I don't think they actively trade in things like plutonium or diamonds but they seem to be more involved in gold.

Having children isn't for everyone.
My son was not planned exactly but I was very happy to be his mom and to have him when I was so young and didn't know what I was in for.
My vanity and other family matters kept me from having more kids,
.
Now that we are old and grey we think it might of been nice to have at least 2 more, in hopes of having a "normal" one at best!
People are able to over think it these days and decide when it's the best time for them.
If that were the case when I was a baby, I wouldn't of been born.
My mom didn't want another baby when she found out I was coming.
She was about ready to leave my wild father then found  out about me.
My mom said, well not sure how to say to nicely,"I was a hole in a rubber"! Makes me feel all warm and cozy inside knowing that!! Ha, ha!
Probably more then half the human pop wouldn't be here if everyone was planned.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Not everyone has disposed of their gold.  Quite a few central banks still have reserves in gold and active trading due to the nature of their economies.

Gold reserves are used as either a hedge against currency devaluation or as a way to make international payments by countries where their paper currency has no value. Yes, countries with gold deposits do this, because, why not? It is a natural resource they can redeem. In theory, oil rich countries do the same with their oil reserves.

But using gold is also one way to conceal transactions by rouge states (or individuals) since gold is not traceable and globally redeemable.

But things like Silver Certificates no longer are created in major economies.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

.....
Anyone ever been over to Kincsem race track here in Budapest?
It's a relaxing time bets are not very much if you're into betting on the horses.'Small booths to buy drinks and watch the horses, not overly fancy dress either.
Once in awhile they have race dress up days with fancy hats but normally it's casual dress.
I have not seen the movie made about the Hungarian race horse, Kincsem,plan on it as soon as I see it on Netflix or even in the movie house here in Hungary, haven't noticed it playing in Hungary at all just yet.

Not been to the race course but I see it regularly from the plane.  Not very big there.  Probably will never go as no interest in gambling whatsoever. I've only played poker twice.  Stockmarket is more of a home job in front of the computer.

On TV and movies, the best news this morning is "The Expanse" (sci-fi) show has been saved from cancellation by Amazon for a 4th season (and we hope more).  It's the latest Game of Thrones of space. Amazon has won a lot of brownie points with people and SyFy is looking utterly stupid. Even Netflix is getting the thumbs up as they stream it internationally.  Yay!

I am pretty sure you could do extras work Marilyn.  Could be a niche job.  There's a whole load of people working as "Westerners" in Korean movies.  Maybe could do that in HU.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Not everyone has disposed of their gold.  Quite a few central banks still have reserves in gold and active trading due to the nature of their economies.

Gold reserves are used as either a hedge against currency devaluation or as a way to make international payments by countries where their paper currency has no value. Yes, countries with gold deposits do this, because, why not? It is a natural resource they can redeem. In theory, oil rich countries do the same with their oil reserves.

But using gold is also one way to conceal transactions by rouge states (or individuals) since gold is not traceable and globally redeemable.

But things like Silver Certificates no longer are created in major economies.

Sure, the gold backs the currency.  This is what the discussion was in the parallel discussion about the UK selling its gold that backs its currency.   I think gold is traceable. It would have a chemical signature but probably more easily disguised.  Bitcoin on the other hand has nothing backing it up but even that is traceable.

I quite like the idea of rouge states. Good for Communist "red" DPRK and The Donald's new bestie, Kim Jong-un and his chubby little rosy cheeks.  You can never have enough chubby cheeks.

Not really my thing to sit around waiting for the shot to start for a film.
Had a gym buddy in Ca. who did extra work for awhile for fun.
Her husband paid the bills because in the mid 80's extra's got paid something like $68. a day but had to be there long hours, sometimes more then 12 hours a day.
She was a extra in a old film about Girl Scouts, staring Shelley Long.
Funny back story, before my friend did that job as a extra, she worked shortly as a housekeeper for a exclusive agent who sent maids out to clean homes for movie stars etc.
She worked in Shelley Longs house for months before quitting the job. Said she was a nut case but she had signed a agreement not to talk about it.... Let's just say she told me a few things about her, like how insane she was about exactly how her towels should be folded...
She worked on the movie set and made sure to always bring a book or two with her because they never knew how long they would be sitting and waiting around.
My sister and one of her boyfriends did extra work for fun 2 or 3 times on the old US tv show, a horror weekly show called, Freddie's Nightmares" With Freddy Krueger.
It was fun but didn't pay the bills.
One time they all had to die in a disco...

When I was 17 and living in Hollywood with my sister I had a strange things happen.
Was wearing one of my outlandious outfits while walking home from school with a friend.
Stopped over their home and when I left to go home , we found a note on the windshield? screen, of their parents car.
It was addressed to the "girl with the big wide brimmed hat", that was me.
They wanted me to stop over to MGM studios and read for a movie part!
Insane...
I showed my sister and our roommate/friend who lived with us.
Had nothing better to do so I ran up the number from the card and it was a legit movie ex. office.
We decided to hitch a ride over and meet him, thought it would be funny to go and see just how pervy this guy was after all, like why did he want to meet me?
Turns out it was a nice old man in his big office, no chasing us around the desk or anything off, a real movie script to read etc.
I didn't get the part, never even thought about it being serious, He gave us money for a taxi because he didn't want us to hitch a ride home. We took the money , hitched home and went out to eat instead with the cash.Yes,like getting discovered by walking on the street really happens.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....
One time they all had to die in a disco...

...

Sounds like my attempts to find a girlfriend in discos in the 1970s/1980s - they all died a death.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....
One time they all had to die in a disco...

...

Sounds like my attempts to find a girlfriend in discos in the 1970s/1980s - they all died a death.

Way too funny!
My  husband was a HU refugee in Sweden back in 1971.
I would say most ladies would of found him a "cutie" in his day.
Very sweet face and stylin'.
Ok so he could not speak any Swedish but at the bar ( a HU friend of his was the bar keeper and kept him in drinks and spoke to him) ladies had his drinks lined up about 6 to 10 drinks deep.
They just loved him to death.
He would go over to a lady in the disco and ask them to dance, he is exactly 5'10" tall and his dance partners usually turned out to be over 6' tall.
A real ego let down for him...
He said those Swedish ladies had the nicest faces but , dang, those were some big mama's!

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....
One time they all had to die in a disco...

...

Sounds like my attempts to find a girlfriend in discos in the 1970s/1980s - they all died a death.

Way too funny!
My  husband was a HU refugee in Sweden back in 1971.
I would say most ladies would of found him a "cutie" in his day.
Very sweet face and stylin'.
Ok so he could not speak any Swedish but at the bar ( a HU friend of his was the bar keeper and kept him in drinks and spoke to him) ladies had his drinks lined up about 6 to 10 drinks deep.
They just loved him to death.
He would go over to a lady in the disco and ask them to dance, he is exactly 5'10" tall and his dance partners usually turned out to be over 6' tall.
A real ego let down for him...
He said those Swedish ladies had the nicest faces but , dang, those were some big mama's!

If you want to go large, go to The Netherlands.  I have no idea what makes being extraordinarily tall and large useful in a very flat country.  Maybe wading across canals to collect some tulips?  Or fighting maybe?  Or cycling. It's the land of the giants.

Ah, now, 1970s stylin'.  Like something out of the movie Shaft or worse John Travolta in Saturday night fever (now there's a dude that re-invented himself).  Ha-ha-ha-ha....stayin' aliiiveeee.  *Groan*.....

Those platform shoes, the round collar shirts, big fat ties and flares the size of a circus tent.   Was that cool or what?  .....it's the what!  A total disaster. When I see myself in those pictures, it's so cringeworthy I cannot believe I thought I was in any way fashionable. Thank God those days are over and please please please we don't want them back.   What were we thinking?!

Hmmm...so what you're saying is that if he was 2" taller you could have been....err... Swedish? 

Errr....not sure what that means really.....

My husband felt tall or at least average height in Hungary but in Sweden when a lady would stand up to dance with him , he felt like a small child and overall like a "shrimp". Wasn't into ladies taller then himself .
Good thing I am one inch shorter then he is and may be shrinking.
70's clothing.... I was into wearing  1930's-1940's clothing for the first few years of the 70's but with my "modern' platform shoes or flats, was into wearing old mens shoes with satin ribbons or hand painting my own shoes... Odd ball dresser here.
Mid 70's, well classic styles even for those "disco" years, nothing to much like Sat. Night Fever ... Then Hawaii with a baby just wearing jean shorts or swimsuits all the time, then the 70's were almost over with.
I know if I had been just a few years younger, the Punk style would of been my forte. Did a mom version of Punk.
Once while our little family was roller skating in Ca. my husband, son and I , a strange er called out to my husband and called him the F word, as in gay .
We laughed because the reason he was called out was because he looked to fine in his stripped tight shirt with skin tight red jeans on...
Oh well, some people know fashion and others can only try.
I used to love shopping vintage thrift shops all over S. Ca.
Everything for vintage gloves, shoes and handbags could be found there in the 70's for very little cost.
Velvet evening coats and bed jackets, wish those would come back in style, never see them any longer. A sort of bathrobe but cut to the waist for those living in luxury and having breakfast in bed.
Maybe I should bring back the  bed jacket look.

They are in the middle of filming outside this morning, gave us all the early morning wake up with towing parked cars away and action being screamed ever few moments. I have not even bothered yet to see what they are doing exactly, the normal car chase can be heard, same old story with a new title.
Strange thing is I can hear the director speaking in Hungarian but all action,camera directions are in English.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

...

They are in the middle of filming outside this morning, gave us all the early morning wake up with towing parked cars away and action being screamed ever few moments. I have not even bothered yet to see what they are doing exactly, the normal car chase can be heard, same old story with a new title.
Strange thing is I can hear the director speaking in Hungarian but all action,camera directions are in English.

Shout "places, rolling, action, cut" out the window.  That'll confuse them.  And they should give everyone who lives in the street 50K HUF for the disruption!  Taking cars away!  That's crazy.

Some movies made in Hungary but purporting to be in say, NYC, are very obviously not made in the USA.   It's quite interesting trying to spot Budapest in the movies these days.  Bit like use of Toronto as Washington or wherever.   

I live close to the Buda hills and when I am out on my mountain bike, I have come across film crews in the forest.  Never seen anyone well known out there but they come with quite a lot of people and hang about all day.  Maybe 10-15 people, few vehicles and  the actors and that shot will be on the screen for just a few seconds.   They usually have  guards who stop me moving through, then they stop filming and then let me go again.  No biggie.

That's what's going on now.
Setting up ramps and doing practice runs with cameras.
You're right, usually all this just for a few seconds of camera time with a green screen even used sometimes.
Last film here they had big green screens set up and a lift to make to car look like it was flying.
Oh well, this too shall pass.
No pay for putting us out, that' probably why they film in Hungary, it's cheap to do so.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

My husband felt tall or at least average height in Hungary but in Sweden when a lady would stand up to dance with him , he felt like a small child and overall like a "shrimp". Wasn't into ladies taller then himself .
Good thing I am one inch shorter then he is and may be shrinking.
70's clothing.... I was into wearing  1930's-1940's clothing for the first few years of the 70's but with my "modern' platform shoes or flats, was into wearing old mens shoes with satin ribbons or hand painting my own shoes... Odd ball dresser here.......
Once while our little family was roller skating in Ca. my husband, son and I , a strange er called out to my husband and called him the F word, as in gay .
We laughed because the reason he was called out was because he looked to fine in his stripped tight shirt with skin tight red jeans on...
Oh well, some people know fashion and others can only try.
....

Calling someone a faggot is a bit strange for the British. While we understand it to mean gay over there, we usually (me anyway), think of it as a kind of meatball.  And a fag is actually slang for a cigarette for us British.   Are you sure the stranger wasn't trying to pick up your hubby?   

Shrinkage is normal.  It's the discs in your spine and bones  getting compressed and bone reducing.  My parents look like they are perhaps 4-5" smaller than 30 years ago but maybe less as I perceive it.   But I feel a giant now and No. 1 Fluffyette is positively "Dutch" (or Swedish) in height now compared to the grandparents.

People seem to becoming more stooped or hunched. A stint in the military will teach people to stand up straight!  They teach you to hold your head up and show some pride in your soldiering.  Quite character building.

Bed jackets? Noooooooooo........!!!!  Be awful.  What's wrong with a hoodie or even better a onsie:

Bed jackets are so elegant.
I'm all talk, I usually find myself wearing a wool vest my MIL knitted for herself years ago when it gets chilly.
Tossed out most of her old clothing but held onto a few odd items for old times sake, never thought it would be one of my household faves.
I once went to a party my old SIL was having at her home.
It was a loungewear party for ladies, selling all sorts of cute items for inside the home or to sleep in.
I bought a silk nightie because I had to buy something at the party.
To this very day, over 30 years I have never worn it, still packed away somewhere...Just not my "style" to wear "girly" silly fem items in the house, I showed it to my husband , it is modest and all but he just laughed so hard.
Said who it this person?

I use an inversion bar to stretch out my spine, makes me hang 100% upside down.
I am too lazy and weak to do head stands in yoga so this is my way of cheating with a full inversion.
No stress on the old neck either.
It does actually feel great with my bum knees . Puts everything back in order with just 5 mins a day.
When I sometimes get too moody my husband will tell me to go "hang yourself" funny, I hope he means go on your inversion bar.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Complex posting.....

First of all, I know nothing about horses, casinos, games of chance, lotteries and all that stuff.

Which makes it a bit difficult for me to argue that investment on the stock market is no different fundamentally from gambling (albeit I agree that the stock market tends to increase in value over time). Which is a pity cos I enjoy a good argument.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Tipsters are like economists except that tipsters have got funny hats and mutton chops whereas economists have got legit degrees.

They are not all John McCririck. And economists with degrees are notoriously bad at predicting what will happen to an economy.

fluffy2560 wrote:

A horse has about maybe 10 years of racing to make that form but a business (usually) has years of historical performance.  There are outliers of course.

But... the horse has pedigree i.e. who it was bred from, and so on, the success of the dam and stallion. That is why there are stud farms. That is essentially the same as a company, having been taken over etc, still retains the goodwill etc of its previous incarnation.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The gee gees are not affected by the economy whereas within limits random guessing in a rising market is always going to produce a return regardless of what you do.

We're agreed on that althoug of course the gee gees are affected by the (large scale) economy just as everything else is, i.e. the ecomomy is essentially a closed-loop control system.  The stock market is more closely affected because it is tied more closely to the economy as a whole.

fluffy2560 wrote:

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

The transaction is over when the the race is over.

That would only be true if one assumed all the horses were somehow alloted to races at random, and that people don"t follow particular horses or stables or jockeys. ...

Why would that be true? I don't know how they allocate the horses but if I'm a "scientific" punter, I'd look across all the market (all races) and bet across all of them making allocations irrelevant.  That's more or less the same as the stockmarket except you have more info on the stockmarket.

Trainers and owners choose races in which they think their horse might perform well, they might be giving it a trial or kinda public exhibition towards a bigger race. Of course they must try to win - there are strict rules about that. A "scientific" punter is known usually as a "value bettor" and does exactly what you describe - look across the market to try to find underpriced (in their opinion) horses.

fluffy2560 wrote:

But following particular horses or even football teams is leading to a causal fallacy.

No it's not. A football team that has done well is likely to continue to do well. (More likely than one that has done badly.) You somehow seem to think that every football match (horse race, etc) is independent of any other. But the team (or horse) is a dependent variable. (Although of course not completely constant between events,)

fluffy2560 wrote:

Ok, I don't know about the types of bet but presumably there are parallels on call/put options etc.

Yep, pretty much. If you bet starting price, you are saying "if this horse starts, I will take the odds that are the average of the odds offered at the start of the race by the on-course bookmakers. If it doesn't start (withdrawn for some reason), I get my stake back". Perhaps this is analogous to a "fill or kill" option. There may not be identities of course, but there will be analogues/parallels, yes. An ante-post bet is essentially a future, in that you take the price at a particular time in advance, regardless of the starting price of the horse.  But if the horse doesn't run, you don't get anything back. I can imagine there are parallels for more complex bets/trades. Combination bets (other than straight accumulators) are essentially hedges, for example.

fluffy2560 wrote:

What might be better is to horse bond. That would work better than just gambling and still have that element of risk albeit with less dopamine.

You do that by buying a share in a horse. It's quite popular, you get the pleasure of "owning" a horse with the other 4,999 in the syndicate and any little win (where you share the prize money) is a bonus (in the same sense a share dividend is usually regarded as a bonus, i.e. you don't buy the share for the dividend).

Or you own greyhounds etc.

fluffy2560 wrote:

What risk indicators do you get on horses?

As well as the Racing Post etc, you get quite a lot of form information, plus you get to see the nag in the paddock before it sets off on its merry journey to the winner's enclosure or slaugterhouse,

I'll leave the stuff about value vs money to another post. Of course they are different (we couldn't have expressions like "value for money" were they not) but intertwined. Really I suppose alln I can say is value is a personal estimate, and money is a collective estimate, of something's worth. The point about money is that its relation to other things is reflexive. Why do bananas get more expensive? Is it because there are fewer bananas, more money, or is it because bananas suddenly are trendy? (i.e. people have more confidence in bananas)

fluffy2560 wrote:

]that one eyed git Brown  ... I could get really abusive about that bloke.  How much did he lose? £5 billion.  Sold about $300/oz in 2009 and if he'd waited 2 years and hedged his bets and sold it in tranches, his overall return would have been higher.  It was about $1700/oz by 2011.  He sold about 500 tonnes.

To flood the market with it was a bit naive. However, compared to PFI it is small change. PFI where we sell assets to private companies then rent them back over many years. This keeps it off the public accounts so everything looks straight. Running two sets of books, in most other sectors of the economy, is known as fraud and you go to prison.

SimonTrew wrote:

Which makes it a bit difficult for me to argue that investment on the stock market is no different fundamentally from gambling (albeit I agree that the stock market tends to increase in value over time). Which is a pity cos I enjoy a good argument.

No it's not. A football team that has done well is likely to continue to do well. (More likely than one that has done badly.) You somehow seem to think that every football match (horse race, etc) is independent of any other. But the team (or horse) is a dependent variable. (Although of course not completely constant between events,)

Bit complex to reply to all that with the formatting - takes a long time.

You can still argue with me or better we call it a debate. I don't think this is a 5 minute argument.  I know nuffin' about the terminology in racing but I do know something about probability, diversification, efficient markets, accounting and bonds.

My view about the difference with the football team and the horse is that you cannot replace parts of the horse, like fitting a new leg (unless we're living in Westworld) but you can mix up the football team to improve the chances of a win.  I'd say horse racing is more random than football.

The pedigree of the horse is clearly important but you are betting on genetics or even the weather more than design and a consistent delivery. But with a football team, you could try and dilute the factors like genetics out of the equation by mixing up the members which would make it more like a diversified bond.

Might be best to buy shares in 10 (even random) horses to diversify your "investment".  Or just buy some diversified shares on the stockmarket.  I wouldn't say a single horse is a bond as it's errr...a one horse race (or better,  a bet)....

Re Tipsters, I've never seen an economist with much character although I saw Robert Peston (1/3 an economist) on the telly on HIGNFY a couple of days ago and he's quite clearly nearly as much a weirdo as that twat misogynist John WhatsHisFace.

Used to invest in stocks, also in gold coins.
Did OK with it, sold everything for a big down payment on our home in Ca.
Had stock in Sea World and another co.
My son wanted to buy Yen awhile back.
He talks all day long to "old people" at his casino.
Always the same group of rich old people come in and play day after day.
Most have stocks and always give him pointers on what's going on, it's so crazy they all recommend something different.
Land is a good investment.
Could shoot ourselves because back in the early 1980's we almost bought a few lots of land on Maui for $10,000 each. We waited and waited and never did it...
Good land too, not on a lava flow.
Back in 89 a HUngarian friend of ours told us to buy apts. anything would be good. He bought about a dozen for himself.
No, we didn't do that, we tried opening a import/export business here instead.... Losers.
I have given up on hitting the "big time" this time around.
Good health is the most important thing there is, money means nothing if you're too ill to enjoy it, where as a nice day out in nature is free, at least for now.

SimonTrew wrote:

I'll leave the stuff about value vs money to another post. Of course they are different (we couldn't have expressions like "value for money" were they not) but intertwined. Really I suppose alln I can say is value is a personal estimate, and money is a collective estimate, of something's worth. The point about money is that its relation to other things is reflexive. Why do bananas get more expensive? Is it because there are fewer bananas, more money, or is it because bananas suddenly are trendy? (i.e. people have more confidence in bananas)

You're talking about supply and demand.  Bananas are usually the top selling item in supermarkets.  People could have more confidence in bananas if someone bigs them up on health and nutrition benefits.  Past few weeks, it's all been strawberries in HU and if you look at the local roadside sellers, the price has been quite volatile as the strawb season disappears.

Probably the most acceptable difference is that we need to say money is a medium of exchange and value is the worth associated with it.

fluffy2560 wrote:

]that one eyed git Brown  ... I could get really abusive about that bloke.  How much did he lose? £5 billion.  Sold about $300/oz in 2009 and if he'd waited 2 years and hedged his bets and sold it in tranches, his overall return would have been higher.  It was about $1700/oz by 2011.  He sold about 500 tonnes.

SimonTrew wrote:

To flood the market with it was a bit naive. However, compared to PFI it is small change. PFI where we sell assets to private companies then rent them back over many years. This keeps it off the public accounts so everything looks straight. Running two sets of books, in most other sectors of the economy, is known as fraud and you go to prison.

I can kind of understand the reason for not keeping the gold but what I don't understand was his timing.  Sitting on the assets makes no real sense. But he could have just bought other government's bonds or currency or better, bought back public debt at a discount.

What you mean about the PFI is being off-balance sheet.  It's a common technique for what used to be called SOEs (State Owned Enterprises).  Typically they do that by moving public entities into agencies and try to make them self funding (in theory non-profit but usually ends up with the public getting screwed).   Actually there are 3 sets of books - one for yourself, one for the shareholders  and one for the taxman.  None of that is actually illegal if you do it correctly.  It's only the fraud that's illegal. 

The £5 billion is small potatoes in the bigger scheme of things but it's cash that could have been brought into public services.  Unfortunately making a mistake in office means not being accountable.  Brown's mate Tony Blair is another nasty example - gruesome twosome.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

No pay for putting us out, that' probably why they film in Hungary, it's cheap to do so.

It's also because Budapest looks a lot like other places don't. If you want somewhere that looks like inter-war Prague, for example, Budapest is apparently the place to film, because Prague doesn't. It's also not just about money (mostly that is just yo-yo money, i.-e. it goes out and comes straight back in again, if you're importing the film crew etc) but how accommodating the authorities are for closing public streets, etc., as you imply.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Used to invest in stocks, also in gold coins.
Did OK with it, sold everything for a big down payment on our home in Ca.
Had stock in Sea World and another co.
....
Land is a good investment.
Could shoot ourselves because back in the early 1980's we almost bought a few lots of land on Maui for $10,000 each. We waited and waited and never did it...
Good land too, not on a lava flow.
Back in 89 a HUngarian friend of ours told us to buy apts. anything would be good. He bought about a dozen for himself.
No, we didn't do that, we tried opening a import/export business here instead.... Losers.
....
Good health is the most important thing there is, money means nothing if you're too ill to enjoy it, where as a nice day out in nature is free, at least for now.

Investing in Sea World sounds a bit fishy. 

The thing about land is that they are not making any more of it (except in Volcano Land).   I also should have listened to Mrs Fluffy and bought houses and land.  C'est la vie.

We still think about land around here but our local government is not very dynamic so I cannot see anyone bringing a Tesco HQ or a Ford factory to the village. Be years and years for anything to happen.   There was talk of a stop on the metro 4 here and that'd be great but what it would mean is the village being saddled with large amounts of debt as far as I understood it.  They won't even zone the "weekend house" area so they don't have to provide services like schools.  Forever rough/gravel roads up there. 

Be good if they just built a cycle path to the next village.  I'd be happy with that to start.  They sort of messed about with that idea but it never really got used as it fizzled out about 300m from the village at the airport. No-one used it so it wasn't a serious effort.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Probably the most acceptable difference is that we need to say money is a medium of exchange and value is the worth associated with it.

Yes, something like that. Value is the worth I  associate to it. If I associate more value to it than you do, we swap. I swap something I value less, i.e. my money, for something I value more, i.e. your bananas. Since as a banana trader you have far too many bananas and not enough money (which is all tied up in plantain plantations) your values are of course the opposite, and as if by magic trade happens.

The tricky thing with money is that its value is also itself in flux with Everything Else, in the absence of a Gold Standard or whatever (i.e. fiat money) so there is no absolute standard to measure it by.

A for devaluation, I was thinking one could make the analogy that value is like temperature and money, or more strictly currency, is like Fahrenheit or Celsius. If I have boiling water I can say it has a temperature of 100 or a temperature of 212 but it is still the same temperature, just I am measuring it differently, I am not valuing it differently. Its value stays the same but the numbers I use to measure it (the units of measure) change.

Devaluation would be like saying, today, water boils at 175 degrees Celsius. Again, the temperature of the water hasn't changed, the name of the scale hasn't changed, you've just devalued Celsius. You've printed more Celsii without changing the amount of the underlying commodity.

Fishy, that was funny.
My husband wasn't too confident about buying property in Hungary back when it first changed over.
He wasn't sure the soviets wouldn't come back again.
Guess living through 1956 scared him for life.
We were about to sell our Ca. house and flush with cash, didn't know what to do with all of it at the time, yes, we are kicking ourselves now.
Oh well, it's only money...Trying to talk myself into not feeling the fool here.
Money comes and goes, the trick it to hang onto it.
Bike trials that lead to nowhere isn't good.
I can't believe some of the roads people ride bikes on, I would be so afraid  to get hit by a car. No helmets, no lights, no nothing.
Sort of wish I was in Vegas for the summer,this semi- spring weather is getting on my nerves here.
Waiting for the rain that never comes.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Fishy, that was funny.
My husband wasn't too confident about buying property in Hungary back when it first changed over.
He wasn't sure the soviets wouldn't come back again.
Guess living through 1956 scared him for life....

I can believe that fear.  Looking at the world now, it's even weirder than we might have imagined back then.  Who could believe a reality TV star in the White House?! But then again, who believed Bedtime for Bonzo's star (or more reasonably, the supporting actor) could be also in the White House.

I'm currently watching The Handmaid's Tale. 

Now that's mega-dystopian and even more scary is that I can actually see that being a possibility if we continue in that direction. 

If you haven't seen that show, it'll scare your socks off and it'll make you really angry that could ever happen somewhere in the future (or now? Iran?).

SimonTrew wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Probably the most acceptable difference is that we need to say money is a medium of exchange and value is the worth associated with it.

Yes, something like that. Value is the worth I  associate to it. If I associate more value to it than you do, we swap. I swap something I value less, i.e. my money, for something I value more, i.e. your bananas. Since as a banana trader you have far too many bananas and not enough money (which is all tied up in plantain plantations) your values are of course the opposite, and as if by magic trade happens.

The tricky thing with money is that its value is also itself in flux with Everything Else, in the absence of a Gold Standard or whatever (i.e. fiat money) so there is no absolute standard to measure it by.

A for devaluation, I was thinking one could make the analogy that value is like temperature and money, or more strictly currency, is like Fahrenheit or Celsius. If I have boiling water I can say it has a temperature of 100 or a temperature of 212 but it is still the same temperature, just I am measuring it differently, I am not valuing it differently. Its value stays the same but the numbers I use to measure it (the units of measure) change.

Devaluation would be like saying, today, water boils at 175 degrees Celsius. Again, the temperature of the water hasn't changed, the name of the scale hasn't changed, you've just devalued Celsius. You've printed more Celsii without changing the amount of the underlying commodity.

I am not sure that works as you're comparing a physical constant with scaling.   Like, what's in a name?

It's like comparing gravity with devaluation.  People wouldn't float off although it could make it interesting if they did.  I kind of like that idea.  Go to Venezuela and they give you an anchor when you leave the plane or some carabinas.    In fact they have to have a ladder or cherry picker to get you out of the plane which never lands.

What I think you need to say is the temperature increase changes in terms of bang for your buck.   So I put in the same amount of energy and instead of getting 100 C, I get a lower temperature.   

It might work with height.  The higher you are, you cannot heat water at 100 C due to lower pressure, it will boil earlier.   In higher pressure (lower down), it's less ....errr..inflationary..... 

Hmmmm....now I've floated that balloon, I need to think about that  particular bubble some more...

I'll have to see if that is available on Netflix or not.
My sister mentioned that show/movie in the past.
I have been looking lately at allot of "thruther" channels on U tube.
Tried to stay away from these truth sayers but my son and cousins have been going on about them for ages, I wanted to keep my head in the sand.
One just played a old documentary from the mid 1970's explaining how the US Army used volunteer US soldiers in mind control , drug and LSD experiments and never did any follow up on them after the testing.
Would not even tell them what was given.
One soldier was tested doing physical activity before being dosed with PCP. filmed again after taking the drug. You could see him falling over etc. but in his mind he was ready to run another 100  miles as he said.
Also showed back between 1956 and 1959 how US agents drove all over NYC and had special cars with exhaust systems the spued out toxic chemicals to see how it reacted in the general public.
They showed actual film from archives of agents going all around the subway lines in NYC with light bulbs filled with a virus, never mentioned which virus. Just broke the light bulbs into the drains of the city to spread the virus and see if people started falling ill or not. A few did and a few died under strange circumstances, they went crazy and jumped out of windows etc.

Many more documented cases of giving people in mental hospitals drugs without their consent or knowledge. A few died horrible deaths, all documented and covered up until the mid 70's.
I am more upset with what already has been done without our consent or knowledge then I ever was from a soviet tank or what they might have planned for us in the future.
It was shocking to watch their interviews with the few living soldiers who were used in those experiments.
They were given strict orders at the time to never tell anyone about what happened to them, sadly they followed orders like good little soldiers do. Too bad they didn't go to the media in the day and expose this before more people were harmed by their own gov.
Oh well, again, I have misplaced my tin foil hat...
Wish this wasn't real and I was just making it up.
Wish I didn't know.