Economic and property outlook for NZ

[propertyfinder]

Perry is completely right, and posted what I was about to. If you make a massive claim that is vague, you need to back it up by explaining just exactly what you disagree with and why, giving your sources tim360 and McDuck.

McDuck, what exactly is "shameful" about the writing? What exactly is "insulting" about it? Which arguments are "weak"? You are being vague and using emotional language rather than giving evidence.

[propertyfinder]

I posted this to my Facebook group 24 hours ago (before the huge rally)

If you listen to the financial "experts" at the moment you will unanimously hear:
1. Stocks are about to crash
2. Deflation is imminent
3. Pay off all debt
4. Sell property
5. Buy precious metals
6. Hold cash

Here's why every one of them is an imbecile and wrong on all 6 counts.

1. Stocks already crashed, as I predicted. The fed has signaled that it will provide UNLIMITED liquidity into the market. This removes all downside risk, and anyone with brains will take that bet. Companies have been handed trillions of dollars in bailouts, and the fed stands ready to loan them unlimited amounts if required. These companies might be dog crap, but for now they are swimming in cash, and you literally can't lose money betting on stocks, so anyone with brains will buy this dog crap.

2. What is currently happening is money printing, and a plunge in consumer spending. Do you disagree with either statement? Here's the textbook definition of deflation "a decrease in the money supply, relative to the goods and services available to be purchased with that money supply". The money supply is INCREASING, and the goods and services are not being produced. It is therefore impossible to have deflation, and we have just identified inflation. Most people think inflation is rising prices. It is not. Rising prices are a symptom of an increasing money supply.

3. We are currently in a hyperinflation environment. We have not yet seen massive price inflation, because that takes a while to distort supply and demand, causing price rises. We have record low interest rates, and they will probably go negative. There has never been a better time to have debt. During hyperinflation, debt stays the same while everything else increases in price 10x. So if you have a house worth 100k and you borrowed 90k, after hyperinflation your house is worth 1m but you still only owe 90k. To think of it another way, your house didn't go up, but your debt fell to 9k. Are you going to say no to either deal?

4. Why would anyone NOT buy property with record low interest rates and the price of everything going up? Rents will not hit record lows, so it's much cheaper to buy than rent. People can borrow larger amounts with lower rates. You are nuts if you think property is going to crash.

5. Only idiots buy precious metals. Yeah, they go up during hyperinflation. So what? Everything does. Why would you buy something that doesn't produce an income? You could instead invest in stocks for dividends or property for rental income. Most of the idiots buying precious metals argue that you need it because you won't be able to afford food during hyperinflation. So why don't you just buy food while it's cheap? Precious metals often crash in price. Food never does. The idiots that buy precious metals sit on their losses for years, even decades. There has never been a long term period in history where gold made more money than stocks or property.

6. Let's say you have 100k cash. You can currently buy a house with that. But after a few years of hyperinflation, a house costs 1m, so you can only buy 1/10 of a house. To think of it another way, your 100k erodes to 10k. If interest rates go negative, the bank will charge you to keep your money with them, so you will lose even more. So who do you want to be? The guy who rents for $200 a week while you watch your 100k shrink to 10k and pay interest to the bank, or the guy who buys a house with only 10k, pays $100 a week mortgage and ends up with 910k equity?

Debt is money. It's every bit as real as cash. And right now, it's just digits on a screen. It used to be a reflection of someones hard work. Now it's just a number that means very little. It's printed out of thin air. Nobody had to work hard to produce a product or service to back those digits up. We have so much debt now that it's IMPOSSIBLE to ever repay it in today's dollars. The only possible way that debt can be repaid is if it shrinks dramatically, becoming insignificant. And the only way to do that is with hyperinflation. That's why it's going to happen. Because that's the only way out.

The other thing about unsecured debt, is you have a choice about whether you repay it or not. Think about what I just said. How long would it take you to save up that amount? And how long does bankruptcy last? Did you squirrel cash away in the back yard that you will spend over the next few years?

Want to tell me I'm a bad person for suggesting people not paying the banks back? Cry me a river of bailouts...

You may have made some good points with examples and clear reasoning, but the fact that you insult those who have different views by calling them "idiots" or "nuts" thus directing part of your argument against the person and appealing to emotion, this massively detracts from your argument.

[McDuck]

McDuck, what exactly is "shameful" about the writing? What exactly is "insulting" about it? Which arguments are "weak"? You are being vague and using emotional language rather than giving evidence.

If you point me to the exact idea or statement that you do agree with, I'll give you my take on it. We might be talking about different things.

[propertyfinder]

If you point me to the exact idea or statement that you do agree with, I'll give you my take on it. We might be talking about different things.

I was asking you to explain what you think is "shameful", "insulting" and "weak" and why, then when I understand what you are saying, I can decide if I agree or not

[McDuck]

I was asking you to explain what you think is "shameful", "insulting" and "weak" and why, then when I understand what you are saying, I can decide if I agree or not

As far as I can recall,
because a lot has happened since,
we were talking about post #75 in this thread.

Best you read the link (in that post) and say what you think about it is, honorable, respectful and strong.
We can go from there, as that is the original claim.

[propertyfinder]

As far as I can recall,
because a lot has happened since,
we were talking about post #75 in this thread.

Best you read the link (in that post) and say what you think about it is, honorable, respectful and strong.
We can go from there, as that is the original claim.

As I wrote before: "McDuck, what exactly is "shameful" about the writing? What exactly is "insulting" about it? Which arguments are "weak"? You are being vague and using emotional language rather than giving evidence."

I was hoping you might back up your argument with some evidence, rather than using an ad hominem argument.

I have only given my opinion on your use of language, I haven't given my opinion on the article or made any claims about it, therefore I don't have any claims to defend.

Never mind, let's forget the article, I can't remember what was in it anyway.

[McDuck]

As I wrote before: "McDuck, what exactly is "shameful" about the writing? What exactly is "insulting" about it? Which arguments are "weak"? You are being vague and using emotional language rather than giving evidence."

I was hoping you might back up your argument with some evidence, rather than using an ad hominem argument.

I have only given my opinion on your use of language, I haven't given my opinion on the article or made any claims about it, therefore I don't have any claims to defend.

Never mind, let's forget the article, I can't remember what was in it anyway.

Well,.... I can give you a generic answer, without referring to any specific piece of writing.
I guess, appropriateness and intention, as well as accuracy and effectiveness are the main virtues of any piece of writing.
If the writing is a piece of comedy, for example, those values would adjust relative to one another, compared to piece in a scientific journal say.
Once you get into very specific forms, like poetry, or deconstruction, I suppose you have to measure in terms of emotion, and invention.

Thanks to a very good High School English teacher, I will only use ad hominem arguments to give a person who delights in their use, a taste of their own medicine. Some people need a practical demonstration.

A rugby mate said it best, play the ball, not the man.
So, let's see if we can find the ball, ..

Didn't you say you agreed with something?

...Perry is completely right, and posted what I was about to..

What idea was it that you agreed with?
That might be interesting to understand.