Well 2010 was not hugely inflationary. But I think Hugh, as we all did, underestimated the Feds appetite for QE, and probably didn't expect the current spike in certain commodities. You can't predict revolution in the Arab world, but you could predict the Fed's brazen incompetence. You win some, you lose some. Thus is the nature of the hedge. I'm sure HH wins more than he loses.
i'm with you in as far as i have a low opinion of speculators in general - but at least from what i can gather Hugh Hendry seems to be making some ballsy comments and i don't feel he spews as much BS as the others - i think you get something close to the truth from him
There are 3 ways of creating wealth : 1 - to work (the average Joe) 2 - to assume responsibilities(judge, policeman, chief, etc) 3 - to assume risks(owners, shops, investors). This guy is on the 3rd sector. (sorry for my English)
Wealth is in a lot more things than what you are talking. Anything that has value for a person is wealth. Anything that people are willing to buy is wealth. Do you want to have judges, doctors, shops, etc, at the level that you would be accepting to pay for those things. Services like that don't manufacture anything, true, but they are wealth in the sense that they have value. You can spend your money on goods, or services like a haircut. Both are production
Services may have value, but they do not create Wealth.
Fair enough in a Fiat system, where wealth can be 'created' out of thin air by the BoE or the Federal reserve printing money at ratio quantities, the profit made on the interest paid is 'wealth', but it is only illusory wealth.
Eventually the debt becomes larger than the 'wealth' created & the currency has to be discarded OR hyperinflationary measures are taken to devalue all the currency held in the system, thus destroying the 'wealth'.
It's not like I disagree with you on the fact that most of our economies are phony. And it's not like I disagree with you on the fact that having an economy of only shops makes no sense. I just wanted to point that working, assuming responsibilities and assuming risks are very important for the development of wealth. B/c if we take "only" your vision we will start to develop communism
Yes, that's what I mean. Do you think workers will accept a deal where they earn 2-3 times more salary but if things go wrong, then they will have to work for negative equity. I mean if the company loses money, they lose 1000-2000 dollars a month while they are working because they are also assuming the risks.
Well 2010 was not hugely inflationary. But I think Hugh, as we all did, underestimated the Feds appetite for QE, and probably didn't expect the current spike in certain commodities. You can't predict revolution in the Arab world, but you could predict the Fed's brazen incompetence. You win some, you lose some. Thus is the nature of the hedge. I'm sure HH wins more than he loses.
Maino88 10 months ago
Hugh Hendry's predicted Mega Deflation never came. :(
How could he underestimate the US Federal Reserve and Trillions of Dollars of Quantity easing?!
gauharjk 1 year ago
@gauharjk Biggest deflation for 60 years doesn't = mega deflation?
And 2010 wasn't exactly a hyperinflationary year.
People will go on predicting hyperinflation and the rest of us will continue to make money out of their stupidity.
Myndir 1 year ago
This guy is wealth from speculation.
He has not produced or manufactured anything.
He is an odious slime ball, possibly a psychopath.
CapitalistHolocaust 2 years ago
i'm with you in as far as i have a low opinion of speculators in general - but at least from what i can gather Hugh Hendry seems to be making some ballsy comments and i don't feel he spews as much BS as the others - i think you get something close to the truth from him
rh7onda7 2 years ago
So do you agree with him on 2 to 3 years of deflation, before hyper-inflation?
CapitalistHolocaust 2 years ago
There are 3 ways of creating wealth : 1 - to work (the average Joe) 2 - to assume responsibilities(judge, policeman, chief, etc) 3 - to assume risks(owners, shops, investors). This guy is on the 3rd sector. (sorry for my English)
madridisinSpain 2 years ago
No.
There is only one way of creating wealth: Production & Manufacture.
Judges & Policemen don't create Wealth. The money they receive is a redistribution of previously created wealth.
Nor, do shopkeepers create real wealth. Their profit is just a redistribution of the wealth of already existing wealth the buyer.
Successful speculators do not create wealth either. They just skim the already existing wealth from the less successful investors.
CapitalistHolocaust 2 years ago
Wealth is in a lot more things than what you are talking. Anything that has value for a person is wealth. Anything that people are willing to buy is wealth. Do you want to have judges, doctors, shops, etc, at the level that you would be accepting to pay for those things. Services like that don't manufacture anything, true, but they are wealth in the sense that they have value. You can spend your money on goods, or services like a haircut. Both are production
madridisinSpain 2 years ago
Services may have value, but they do not create Wealth.
Fair enough in a Fiat system, where wealth can be 'created' out of thin air by the BoE or the Federal reserve printing money at ratio quantities, the profit made on the interest paid is 'wealth', but it is only illusory wealth.
Eventually the debt becomes larger than the 'wealth' created & the currency has to be discarded OR hyperinflationary measures are taken to devalue all the currency held in the system, thus destroying the 'wealth'.
CapitalistHolocaust 2 years ago
It's not like I disagree with you on the fact that most of our economies are phony. And it's not like I disagree with you on the fact that having an economy of only shops makes no sense. I just wanted to point that working, assuming responsibilities and assuming risks are very important for the development of wealth. B/c if we take "only" your vision we will start to develop communism
madridisinSpain 2 years ago
I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, not a communist.
Anarcho-syndicalism is a mix of worker owned industries freely associating with small scale sole traders (capitalists with a small 'c').
CapitalistHolocaust 2 years ago
Yes, that's what I mean. Do you think workers will accept a deal where they earn 2-3 times more salary but if things go wrong, then they will have to work for negative equity. I mean if the company loses money, they lose 1000-2000 dollars a month while they are working because they are also assuming the risks.
madridisinSpain 2 years ago
well ts 1 year on and its still a possibility.
dikkydoo1 1 year ago
Any investment is speculative.
bdc03 2 years ago
Speculators create value by increasing liquidity and making markets more efficient.
Azbx23 2 years ago