perfect description of the show, impossible to follow
Last night's programme was dreadful. In a triumph of style over substance it was like the director had been let loose in an edit suite for the first time.
And McWilliams jetted all round the world to do a series of long walking shots before stating the bleedin' obvious.
The programme took so long to make that by now it looked horribly outdated.
Christ knows what they spent but McWilliams must have a lot of air miles racked up.
Follow the gourd....
My 9yr old phrased this one. "If the world loses a lot of money then someone else must have it - so who has it?". Noddy Holder asked the same question on Have I got news for you. No one had the answer - not even a jokey one.
The previous owner of the asset, i.e. the seller of the asset, has the money you paid them for the asset that subsequently drops in value.
Take his question "Where does America get its money from?" - simple but very important question. McWilliams tells us it is China.
So where does China get its money from?
More precisely, the US nation is a net borrower from the savers of the world, mainly Asian savings, incl China.
McWilliams makes another call (disputed on this thread) he says its from a Waong in a factory - at 2 dollars a week or something, and he interviews Waong.
Don't think in terms of "money", think in terms of "savings" and "borrowings", or surpluses and deficits. The Chinese nation is a net saver as it produces more output than it consumes.
I dont know where big countries get their money. Does anyone know the full details?
I think you mean where do borrowing nations like the USA and UK, Spain, etc. borrow from??
Answer: the world's savers, i.e. other countries that run surpluses, e.g. Gulf states, Norway, oil producers, Asian saving nations, etc.
ps I would like to add that I predict the programme will be adapted for use in other countries by replacing the small Irish related bits with bits relating to the countries that buy the programme.
The first episode had few Irish references, which is not surprising as the series is produced in association with S4C and RTE, but developed and produced with the Australian BC, producedd and developed in association with Screenwest and Lotterywest(that's Western Australia..")
"The previous owner of the asset, i.e. the seller of the asset, has the money you paid them for the asset that subsequently drops in value"
Isn’t that a theoretical answer.
Who has it exactly. Where is it stored. If the banks have it on deposit then why does America think it needs to add made up money to the system to get money moving when it’s already there – somewhere – not moving?.
If it was a simple as that then Ireland would be a rich country – didn’t we sell the assets to ourselves. Where’s the cash.
Who has it exactly. Where is it stored. If the banks have it on deposit then why does America think it needs to add made up money to the system to get money moving when it’s already there – somewhere – not moving?.
If it was a simple as that then Ireland would be a rich country – didn’t we sell the assets to ourselves. Where’s the cash.
If it was a simple as that then Ireland would be a rich country – didn’t we sell the assets to ourselves. Where’s the cash.
Ireland is a rich country, with huge wealth.
Our national annual income has fallen by 10-15%, but we are still wealthy.
In terms of cash deposits, households own 90bn.
If we incluse all financial assets and financial liabilites, we arrive at 100 bn + household wealth.
See page 73 below:
[broken link removed]
You are assuming that they just took the money and put it on deposit, rather than invest it or spend it.We hear about all those who owe billions - why don’t we see the list of the people that have the billions made from selling while the boom was on. And lets borrow it back from them - no?
I'm pretty sure I heard or read that one of the justifications for printing money was that if x amount of trillions has disappeared from the worlds banks then lets just fill the hole with cumulative easing. It may have been an over simplistic metaphor of things but it did plant in my mind that the money had disappeared.
If liquidity is the problem (and not shortage of cash) then why cant the worlds governments just force the banks to release the cash - no bail out needed.
It was paper wealth, not real wealth, i.e. America has been increasing it's asset prices by making cheap credit available to its citizens, with money borrowed from China. You are confusing wealth (percieved) with actual hard assets. If you buy an asset for €100 and then sell it for €150 you have increased your actual wealth by 50%. If you buy an asset for €100 and someone else sells a similar product for €150 that does NOT increase your actual wealth by 50%, only your perceived/theoretical wealth.And why is America borrowing from China when the boom made wealth is presumably sitting there in Western Banks.?
In a true free-market economy neither the banks nor the government would have the power, it would be the market participants, i.e. consumers, who make the decisions on what products deserve their custom. As it stands now, governments have ultimate power over everyone in the economy; they can raise taxes, nationalise a company or industries, restrict competition, etc. But politicians are influenced on decision making by voters and industry lobby groups, where the lobby groups often have most influence.Who has the power. Banks or Governments. Maybe thats the issue here. Governments ultimately have less real power than banks ?.
"If the world loses a lot of money then someone else must have it - so who has it?". Noddy Holder asked the same question on Have I got news for you. No one had the answer - not even a jokey one.
Quantative easing, though I like your malap. better.I'm pretty sure I heard or read that one of the justifications for printing money was that if x amount of trillions has disappeared from the worlds banks then lets just fill the hole with cumulative easing. It may have been an over simplistic metaphor of things but it did plant in my mind that the money had disappeared.
Thanks for the replies Protocol. I'll need to digest them slowly to comprehend fully.
Re:
"When assets like houses, property, etc. fall in value there is NOT any "loss of money", there is still the same amount of money around"
That’s the bit that confuses me. It’s what I reckoned initially. The money pile stays the same. Someone does make a loss though. A property has to sell for less for a drop in value to be realised. The original seller when the price is high has the money.
Yes, (notional) wealth falls, but the stock of money stays the same.
I can only think of one high profile seller who didn't buy on (in Ireland at least) and that’s the doyle/jury's hotel group so presumably they're still sitting on the 1 billion cash pile.
Good example, I use it as well.
We hear about all those who owe billions - why don’t we see the list of the people that have the billions made from selling while the boom was on. And lets borrow it back from them - no?
Here's an example: the Ennis bypass land acquisition costs were 37m alone. It made millionaires of several landowners, mostly farmers. They now have millions on deposit, unless they bought shares or property!!
I'm pretty sure I heard or read that one of the justifications for printing money was that if x amount of trillions has disappeared from the worlds banks then lets just fill the hole with cumulative easing. It may have been an over simplistic metaphor of things but it did plant in my mind that the money had disappeared.
If the stock of money falls, it may lead to or be a symptom of deflation, so the CB intervene to boost the money stock. They buy assets from the general public and pay for them by creating new money.
NB: no new wealth, just a change in the composition of assets - more money, less of other assets.
If liquidity is the problem (and not shortage of cash) then why cant the worlds governments just force the banks to release the cash - no bail out needed.
And why is America borrowing from China when the boom made wealth is presumably sitting there in Western Banks.?
If the USA produces goods and services worth 100, and consumes/spends 110, they must borrow 10 from somewhere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?