A bit off topic - does anyone know other blogs like priceonomics? I'm a big fan - I think the first article I read there was the "Diamonds are bullshit" one. Must be fun having access to all kinds of interesting data and poring over them.
Liked the "Diamonds are bullshit" Anything similar on watches/suits. THese are mine flaws
When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)
271–277 of 277 posts
Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, the argument here is that a weak currency is advantageous for an economy. Advanteageous relative to countries also having the Euro burden perhaps. But even just from a marcoeconomic perspective there seem to be distinct contradictions everywhere.
> weak currency is advantageous for an economy Some nuance please... Your fallacious point of view is pushed by certain lobbying groups because a weak currency is - horribly harmful to inhabitants' living standards (how many days of disposable income does it take a developer to buy an iPhone in the UK vs in the US? About three times as many.) - very helpful to the shareholders of exporting companies (cheap labor and…
How much does it cost cancer treatment in the US vs the UK?
Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)
#273It makes me wonder if he would have been successful if he wasn't able to short 10 billion. As the article said, Norman Lamont was planning to defend the sterling with 15 billion.
Yes, and they were able to borrow more eventually. But when you see that kind of movement there’s gonna be momentum.
Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the currency is priced at fair value but the country is small and thus has proportionate reserves, a multi-billionaire could simply pump all his money into pushing the currency out of its declared price range, causing a loss of trust in the currency, resulting in a further slide of the currency. That isn't what happened here of course, but it could happen to a smaller country trying to maintain a pegged currency.
It isn't what happened here because that doesn't happen anywhere. Putting more money into a currency makes it worth more. If a currency is backed by something else, you buy more of it as your currency is bought. That's how pegs work, the currency is an IOU for something else. Insolvency happens when a financial institution says they have more than they do and someone withdrawals enough to call their bluff. You don't…
You don't pump money into purchasing the currency. You pump money into shorting the currency, as Soros did here.
Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, such a propaganda tone that I am not used to seeing in HN. "9 billion a year for a voting right" is like saying that the average software developer in London pays 20K a year to the government for voting rights every 5 years. You obviously don't pay taxes for voting rights, you pay taxes to sustain or improve the environment you operate in and the voting is about choosing the people and the path to that. The "div…
> Wow, such a propaganda tone that I am not used to seeing in > HN. I think we have a very different definition of propaganda. I suggest getting into the comments early when a keyword is used in the title. > "9 billion a year for a voting right" is like saying that > the average software developer in London pays 20K a year > to the government for voting rights every 5 years. It's clearly a tongue in cheek exaggeratio…
Sure, UK will have it's desert that paid for and can decide what to do with it. These things are settled in the withdrawal agreement. After all, it's not a fine.
Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've given three examples, two of which are specifically chosen to highlight EU-related expenses and have qualified them with comments intended to provoke a reaction ("to be a minority voting block", "paying the best part of £600 out of their own pocket to the EU - something they never voted to be a part of anyway"). You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get into it with someone here on Brexit :-)
> You can deny it if you want, but you clearly wanted to get > into it with someone here on Brexit :-) The original intent was just to show that £3.3 billion is really nothing compared to our other expenses, but clearly I kicked the hornets nest.
[deleted]
Re: When George Soros Broke the British Pound (2014)
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't what happened here because that doesn't happen anywhere. Putting more money into a currency makes it worth more. If a currency is backed by something else, you buy more of it as your currency is bought. That's how pegs work, the currency is an IOU for something else. Insolvency happens when a financial institution says they have more than they do and someone withdrawals enough to call their bluff. You don't…
You don't pump money into purchasing the currency. You pump money into shorting the currency, as Soros did here.
A short is just a method of selling first and buying later. This doesn't destroy a currency that is properly backed or a financial entity that is solvent. It only forces an organization that doesn't have what they say they have to eventually admit it.
The person replying to me was saying that it didn't matter if an organization was healthy or not - a billionaire could still 'destroy' or 'break' it, but they weren't able to give an example of how that would happen despite repeating the same claim multiple times.