Do I come to sharestock to make money? No, I come for entertainment. I enjoyed Andrew's (erroneous) views last year, please invite him again . I hope to be able to attend in person again
in terms of diversity its a bit like the board of er um er an AIM listed company where all 5 directors are white middle class males aged 50-67, I'm struggling to think of its name can you assist?
Now that you are part of the AIM establishment...In the old days companies graduated to the MM in an orderly fashion and were replaced by new young companies that would use AIM to growNow there is a rush of good companies to escape and bugger all good small companies joining to replace themThat is different.
I read the RNS yesterday morning before reading this now (wednesday morning) and after looking at the board's make up had exactly the same thought. There is ZERO diversity here, it is female dominated and the fact that they are of an age where they might have one eye on retirement makes it even worse. For other reasons as well I cannot see this bunch driving the company forward.
Companies leaving AIM to go to the main market is a sign of success for the AIM market as these companies have listed on AIM, become larger and outgrown the market and are now being promoted. This is exactly the same as a footy team being promoted from the Championships to the Premier. You know this but you paint it as being bad for AIM which will all know it isn't. Yes AIM is full of shitcos but you should not be trying to twist success into failure.
I gotta say the idea of slashing fuel taxes is a really good one, they are way too high, ok, so the government make a vast amount of money off these taxes but if inflation went down and then base rate they would be paying so much less on government debt... Extra money would be in peoples pockets, companies wold be making more money and greater taxes that way.
ok so moneterism is wrong & fuel driving inflation so what is wrong with my idea of slashing fuel taxes, eliminating inflation and thus allowing rates to be slashed?What's wrong with my idea is that MV does always = PT
As you were unwilling to check the data about money supply I did it for you. The broad definition of money preferred by the BoE, M4ex did indeed grow by 4% in the last 12 months to September, but that growth was not driven by Government spending or borrowing. It was due to money creation by the private banking sustem. In case you don’t understand the mechanism, let me explain it. Most broad money is created when commercial banks make loans. A mortgage or business loan creates a matching deposit, and that deposit is counted in M4ex. The recent data fits this: mortgage lending is growing at about 3.6% a year, consumer credit at around 9%, and borrowing by large businesses at over 10% (June figures). If private lending grows faster than money, other items must be pulling the other way. That would fit quantitative tightening (the Bank's gilt sales), plus bank funding that isn't counted as money. Government borrowing is large but it is mainly financed outside the banking system and so does not involve printing money. You have fallen into the monetarist fallacy, just because money printing causes inflation, it doesn’t mean that all inflation is caused by money printing. To that extent Milton Friedman was wrong.
