mctim89 I've noticed that Frankie Boyle used to laugh whenever David Mitchell made a joke. Most of his other fellow panelists never seemed to have that effect on him.
Even though this clip is really funny, the best part is that there's more truth in the words of David Mitchell than all politicians combined. Go figure.
It's awesome that Mitchell doesn't even pause. But I bet he was thinking "Silence Howard! I am on a rant and if you have seen any of my rants before you will know I am not to be interrupted!" or words to that effect.
anyone else find frankies approval of david bizarrely wonderful? they should do a show frankie could piss off/scare/offend the audience and david could rant about the audience being pissed/scared/offended
Let me quote Gekko here:"It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another."
For people who care it's actually the other way around. The point is someone did effectively just "type a bigger number in" that's what the housing bubble is. The houses aren't worth as much as so many people thought they were. And the system of lending money to keep businesses running has lead to REAL loss in productivity. Factories are shut down as well as if they had been blown but by the Luftwaffe only they are shut down as they can't get a lone to pay for the raw materials they need.
You're very mislead. The houses weren't necessarily worth less than they were selling them for. And the housing bubble is really the very tip of an iceburg.
***** "Houses are worth as much as they're sold for. Always." Well DUH, in a self-fulfilling definition loop of defining a term like worth right back as "the price it sells for". But the whole point of a bubble is that worth can be completely out of touch with reality. The problem with using wealth so broadly is it becomes impossibly to really talk about if houses are arbitrarily far too costly to afford than they really could be. It's fine to have these games of SUCH arbitrary value for luxuries like art, or for financial instruments like currency. But we are talking about people's fucking homes here. People are either ending up homeless or forced to fritter away their wealth on renting their home. I think it is YOU who is playing dumb to economics, as if a very well funded and connected buy-to-rent company is the same sort of buyer as a cautious first time buyer who banks are reluctant to give any substantial mortgage to. They are NOT going to have the same spending power OR possibly buy as hastilly. It gets rather tedious when homes are built that they know local skilled workers can afford only to find EVERY SINGLE LOT bought up to be rented out! And the rents are as high or worse than any mortgage payments. It's completely out of touch the idea that people going at their own pace will buy up these houses before. The result is people pay as much or more but for a home they don't own, will NEVER own and are just paying their landlord's mortgage plus extra on top. My parents did this, they got VERY rich off it and honestly they say they felt it was the worst thing they've ever done. They had just economically screwed dozens of other people.
Houses are worth as much as somebody can pay for! The problem was that people couldn't really pay for them, and so the prices were inflated beyond what the market could manage.
why? There's literally nothing he could say that Jon Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Obama, all of hollywood, news, academia or government hasn't already said..... the orange man's a nutter.
Hear, hear. Had to look this few times cause that's just so bang on. If anyone below tries to says it ain't so, that the numbers are something... Well, bring me the goods.. There is already more money in the market that there are goods on earth. By multiples.. We got enough money to buy three moons but not enough for feeding the poor. Tell me again, are those numbers real or not cause for sure, they are not appearing on reality. 99,9% of them just gets transferred to another account. Money has value only if it is used. If one can delete a bunch of code without anyone hurting, that's not a real currency.
You should only care what people FEEL, not what actual sounds they make to express those feelings. It's perfectly easy for two people to use the same word to mean very different things. However, once you've realized it's what people feel that matters, you have to realize you can't start telling people what they are or aren't allowed to feel.
Yup, that's the financial industry. The catch is that when the numbers are good some people get a bunch of free money, so they have to scramble to fob off the bad numbers onto somebody like the taxpayer so the system all balances out,
I kinda had a similar thought before, but if we lived in the same mindset as people used to live hundreds of years ago when goods were traded for other goods, how would we regulate how much is needed for a fair exchange for another type of good? Would we need to have a huge charter of how much is needed of one thing to get another? In some situations it would be physically impossible to buy things because carrying around goods is just inconvenient.
Basically, although also the number juggling lead to overinvestments in some industries (like housing), which if it's artificially kept up with printed money only increases and deepens that overinvestment into the industry, leading to too few investments (actual goods, not numbers on a screen) into other industries
Question Time is the one that usually invites celebrities on. David's been on that, along with a few others like Ian Hislop and Tony Robinson. It's quite weird when they go over to Baldrick to chip in about the economy!
The problem is those aren't numbers, they are promises. A trillion little promises to each other. When you start breaking promises, then suddenly even if you have all the resources you can't see them as you can't be trusted to deliver.
People were allowed to "buy" houses in America that they couldn't afford, because the people who loaned them the money knew that they wouldn't be on the hook if they had to default. Unfortunately, banks around the world and huge insurance companies decided they WOULD be on the hook. So there are lots of people in houses that they committed to pay for at a much higher price than they can actually pay. That's the only semi-real part.
That is true. Money doesn't just disappear. Though, to a business man, if it isn't HIS, it might as well disappear. The real problem with the system, is that to make one man RICH, many people are made poor. It isn't a game played only by willing participants - EVERYONE has to play, and there are far more losers than winners.
