Mortgage rates / interest etc

[D_W]

In the UK, this is a UK forum, average a general term for mean, median and mode.

Here is an extract from A level Maths revision notes. A levels are taken at 18 and form the basis of University selection.

"What are mean, median and mode?​

• Mean, median and mode are measures of location
  • A measure of location gives information about where data is in the number system
  • Mean, median and mode are measures of central tendency
  • They describe where the centre of the data is
• They are all types of averages
  • In Statistics it is important to be specific about which average you are referring to"

https://www.savemyexams.co.uk/a-lev...al-measures/2-1-1-basic-statistical-measures/
You will note that importance is placed telling people which average you are using.

Obviously people will choose a miss leading type of average and then may be unwilling to tell people which type they used as it will undermine their argument.

I guess you guys use a different math language than we do over here. Average is flatly stated in the M-W dictionary here as the sum divided by the quantity.

however, the use of the word average is almost constantly used to mislead, often because someone has convinced themselves that they have the freedom to use it.

The pitfalls of average used without other measures is something different (skewness, kurtosis, etc), but that's usually reasonably well covered by providing the median (e.g., the median net worth in the US is something like $130k) vs. the mean ($750k).

You will often see that "the average person is drowning in debt", or comments like that, or "the average poor person pays more in taxes than the rich".

Neither of these are true.

Too, if folks try to rely on calling the mode "average", which is how some people perceive it here, too - as any group you can think of has having more than one can be "the average person" often refer to a group that isn't the mode, either.

I would call misuse of numerical terms to support an argument or imply that something is numerically significant and then say it's not is part of "the language of losers". An excellent term that Adam Carolla coined years ago for people who say something that is intentionally inaccurate. Loser language often involves numbers. Like saying "I missed that because I didn't double check it" which is a fudge around saying you didn't check something at all leaving the recipient of the communication to think maybe you did check something but missed it. Intentionally.

Loser implies the person who doesn't try or do but talks like they did, not the person who tried and failed.

 

[D_W]

I'm guessing my comment about "language of losers" will sound a little harsh, but it's not just mud slinging to other people. The point of it is that running around and misdirecting or implying by omission certainly doesn't do the recipient of the speech or discussion any favors, but in the long term, it does only negative things for the person who takes the easy way out (at best) when communicating something that doesn't need to be imprecise.

There have been plenty of times in the OT that I had wished to make a statement that I had a hunch was true and then found out it wasn't. Or posted something numerical, found out it wasn't correct, and revised it.

There's nothing about me that's a particular success story, but I traded wanting to be right vs. not saying things that are incorrect or misleading if I can help it a long time ago. It's pretty easy to get past "I was wrong about that" to "this is the correct version", or "my argument isn't robust, but I really feel like it should be the case 'if things were fair'" to "if the argument isn't robust, then maybe I shouldn't be making it".

 

[Blackswanwood]

Two points i'd like to reply to -

You've gone back to divorce -

Me spitting out the window if there's a flood is a "factor", but I wouldn't try and use it as a cause of the flood.

This is one that, really, I don't need to try and convince you of though. QE correlated with a massive increase in asset prices. If you think that correlation should be talked about in terms of the divorce rate, then so be it.
But I think you may be trying to fight against the tide.


The second point -

You mention pension funds buying up housing stock. Just to be sure, you realise thats exactly what I was saying, right?

You do seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar over this

As I’ve said I agree QE has had an impact. It’s not the only thing though and the mention of divorce came about in response we to someone asking why more housing stock was needed when the birth rate was falling. It wasn’t put forward as the only reason house prices were rising.

On your second pointily put point I was highlighting where some of the money has ended up. Simplistically consumers spend money having “benefitted” from QE, companies make profits and those who have private pensions (most working people) indirectly own the companies and receive dividends. Pension funds have a diverse range of investments and there has been a shift with some investing in increasing housing supply. This includes more affordable and social housing. To my mind this is a good thing although to be clear I am not saying there will not be many other examples of the marbles (to use your analogy) ending up elsewhere.

Do you always feel the need to be so snippy when someone has a slightly different perspective to yours or is today just a bad day?

 

[julianf]

Your marbles in a bucket allegory is incorrect.

There was more than one bucket. You are asking why you did get marbles from another bucket.

Many people got marbles from the bucket set up for people whose jobs were closed or disrupted by covid.

Companies that were forced to close had their own bucket.

Money was used to buy PPE, set up vaccination stations etc from a different bucket.


If everybody had the same share of all the different buckets how would that work. Would you give some of your marbles to your employer so that they can pay their bills when they could not trade. What about the local pub. Would you give some of your marbles to the local doctors and hospital so that they can swap them for PPE.

All the marbles were not in the same bucket.

Now if you want to talk about investigation of fraud and mismagement of the marbles and the different buckets I would support that.

I was simplifying things for those who pretend not to understand, and seem to have created further issues.

My point is that the marbles have not disappeared. If 600 billion marbles were poured into any number of buckets, those marbles still exist.

If you don't have [number of population / number of marbles] then someone has ended up with more marbles than you. And they have got richer, in terms of marbles, whilst you, relative to them, have got poorer.


This really is simple maths. I'm evidently a really poor teacher, or some people dont really want to understand. Like the chap who said that he will need to "agree to disagree". I mean if i try and demonstrate that 2+2=4, someone can "agree to disagree" all they like, but it doesn't change maths.

We are not talking who should have got what. We are talking undisputable maths. If 1000 marbles are give out between 100 people, and then its "all shaken up" those with less than 10 marbles have become relatively poor (in marbles) against any that end up with more than 10 - no matter if they have more marbles than they started with.

Number of buckets, colour of buckets, what the buckets have written on them, etc. etc. is not relevant.

 

[johna.clements]

I guess you guys use a different math language than we do over here. Average is flatly stated in the M-W dictionary here as the sum divided by the quantity.

however, the use of the word average is almost constantly used to mislead, often because someone has convinced themselves that they have the freedom to use it.

The pitfalls of average used without other measures is something different (skewness, kurtosis, etc), but that's usually reasonably well covered by providing the median (e.g., the median net worth in the US is something like $130k) vs. the mean ($750k).

You will often see that "the average person is drowning in debt", or comments like that, or "the average poor person pays more in taxes than the rich".

Neither of these are true.

Too, if folks try to rely on calling the mode "average", which is how some people perceive it here, too - as any group you can think of has having more than one can be "the average person" often refer to a group that isn't the mode, either.

I would call misuse of numerical terms to support an argument or imply that something is numerically significant and then say it's not is part of "the language of losers". An excellent term that Adam Carolla coined years ago for people who say something that is intentionally inaccurate. Loser language often involves numbers. Like saying "I missed that because I didn't double check it" which is a fudge around saying you didn't check something at all leaving the recipient of the communication to think maybe you did check something but missed it. Intentionally.

Loser implies the person who doesn't try or do but talks like they did, not the person who tried and failed.

I posted from Merriam-Webster in reply to your self at 1605 UK time on Monday post 365. I did not realise that Merriam-Webster had different entries when accessed from the UK, that's a bit strange.

"Definition of average​

(Entry 1 of 3)


1a : a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values "

From Definition of AVERAGE

"Merriam-Webster is America's most trusted online dictionary" , according to Merriam Webster.
When I was learning statisics at school here in the UK (most likely about 13) we were taught that there were three types of average and you choose mean. median or mode depending on the data and what you want to present. Also we were told that you should tell people which average you are using.

 

[julianf]

Do you always feel the need to be so snippy when someone has a slightly different perspective to yours or is today just a bad day?

In a debate, there are points which can be discussed, and there are points which are taken as understood.

If you are trying to have, say, a scientific discussion, and someone keeps saying "2+2=5" and you keep explaining to them how 4 multiples of 1 actually equals 4... and then, after a while it becomes clear that the reason they wont accept that 2+2=4 is mostly that they don't want it to equal 4. Well, its disappointing.

Maybe that person will finally say that you will have to agree to disagree when presented with a collection of workings which, indeed, show that 2+2=4. It might not actually be that they do not understand, but more that they do not want to. Or that they were hoping for some other result where, eventually the sum worked out as 5.

There are points where it gets more complex. Discussing the credibility of the Laffer curve / Reganomincs, sure, but simple maths stuff... You start to wonder if the person really does have a problem, or, well, something else.


Your comment about the price of housing going up because of the divorce rate is, like i say, akin to me increasing the flood by spitting in it. Both are as true. Both have debatable relevance.

Find a graph somewhere of divorce rates, and find one of average house prices. Overlay them. See if there's much correlation.
Stick another graph on top showing events that create an increase in the money supply (eg QE) and see if there is a correlation.

I've not done it, but I know what the answer will be.


We can discuss at length if QE was the best approach, in the same way as we can look at the motivation for Reganomics, and what the consequences were, but trying to suggest that QE was not, without debate, the massive lever with which the asset market was raised after 2008 is akin to constantly saying 2+2=5.

Or that the marbles were spent, so no longer exist...

 

[johna.clements]

I was simplifying things for those who pretend not to understand, and seem to have created further issues.

My point is that the marbles have not disappeared. If 600 billion marbles were poured into any number of buckets, those marbles still exist.

If you don't have [number of population / number of marbles] then someone has ended up with more marbles than you. And they have got richer, in terms of marbles, whilst you, relative to them, have got poorer.


This really is simple maths. I'm evidently a really poor teacher, or some people dont really want to understand. Like the chap who said that he will need to "agree to disagree". I mean if i try and demonstrate that 2+2=4, someone can "agree to disagree" all they like, but it doesn't change maths.

We are not talking who should have got what. We are talking undisputable maths. If 1000 marbles are give out between 100 people, and then its "all shaken up" those with less than 10 marbles have become relatively poor (in marbles) against any that end up with more than 10 - no matter if they have more marbles than they started with.

Number of buckets, colour of buckets, what the buckets have written on them, etc. etc. is not relevant.

You are correct the 600 hundred million marbles have not disappeared they were spent from there different buckets.

Many people got marbles from the furlough bucket. I got some furlough marbles and spent them in Tesco. Lidl and utilities. I do not have my marbles any more. I spent them.

The place I was working for was compulsorily closed. They got money from the business support bucket. They spent the money on rent, utilities, product that could no longer be sold. They also no longer have there marbles, they were spent.

The PPE vacinations etc came out of another bucket. I have been vaccinated in a conference center. The NHS gave some marbles to the conference center to pay for heating and hire of the place and the people working there would have got some marbles that they would have taken to Tesco. The marbles were spent.

If you think that businesses that were forced to close should not have received any marbles you should say so.

If you think that people should have been given marbles so that they could pay to get vaccinated you should say so.

 

[julianf]

You are correct the 600 hundred million marbles have not disappeared they were spent from there different buckets.

Many people got marbles from the furlough bucket. I got some furlough marbles and spent them in Tesco. Lidl and utilities. I do not have my marbles any more. I spent them.

The place I was working for was compulsorily closed. They got money from the business support bucket. They spent the money on rent, utilities, product that could no longer be sold. They also no longer have there marbles, they were spent.

The PPE vacinations etc came out of another bucket. I have been vaccinated in a conference center. The NHS gave some marbles to the conference center to pay for heating and hire of the place and the people working there would have got some marbles that they would have taken to Tesco. The marbles were spent.

If you think that businesses that were forced to close should not have received any marbles you should say so.

If you think that people should have been given marbles so that they could pay to get vaccinated you should say so.

I've not said either of the above as neither are my opinion.

My comment is that 600b was injected into the economy. It's happened. The money is out there.

(again, by "there" I mean somwhere else other than, by your admission, with you or I)

So what happens now?

Do you, for example, try to get that cash back in, or do you leave it in circulation with the resultant effects of inflation and increasing wealth polarization?

Again, it's out there now. That's not up for debate. Those at the higher end of the wealth spectrum have accumulated increased assets, and those at the bottom of the spectrum have become (relatively) poorer.
Again, this isn't up for debate (not by anyone who understands pretty basic marble maths).
Increase in the money supply increases inflation. Again simple maths. Energy markets also contribute, sure, but 600b cash injections increase inflation. It's just the way it is, like 2+2...


So you have all these things that are resultant of the increased cash supply. What do you do about it now?

 

[Jacob]

Gary Stevenson for chancellor of the exchequer! Or the new messiah. Roll on Garymas!
https://www.youtube.com/c/garyseconomics

 

[johna.clements]

I've not said either of the above as neither are my opinion.

My comment is that 600b was injected into the economy. It's happened. The money is out there.

(again, by "there" I mean somwhere else other than, by your admission, with you or I)

So what happens now?

Do you, for example, try to get that cash back in, or do you leave it in circulation with the resultant effects of inflation and increasing wealth polarization?

Again, it's out there now. That's not up for debate. Those at the higher end of the wealth spectrum have accumulated increased assets, and those at the bottom of the spectrum have become (relatively) poorer.
Again, this isn't up for debate (not by anyone who understands pretty basic marble maths).
Increase in the money supply increases inflation. Again simple maths. Energy markets also contribute, sure, but 600b cash injections increase inflation. It's just the way it is, like 2+2...


So you have all these things that are resultant of the increased cash supply. What do you do about it now?

How would you have supported all the business that was forced to close if you did not give them money. How would you have paid for the vaccination centers.

A lot of money was not generated. I live near the sea side. We did not see a lot of tourists for a couple of years. The government spent a lot but a lot was not generated.

 

[julianf]

How would you have supported all the business that was forced to close if you did not give them money. How would you have paid for the vaccination centers.

A lot of money was not generated. I live near the sea side. We did not see a lot of tourists for a couple of years. The government spent a lot but a lot was not generated.

I have never said the money should not have been spent. My concern is what happens now.

 

[julianf]

As a side note -

One might even question if the huge injection of cash that has ended up at the higher end of the wealth spectrum might, given the current economic climate, actually be casting significant doubt on supply side economics.



I mean the rich have significantly greater share of the marbles than they did pre-covid, and that's supposed to stimulate growth... And yet we are on the edge of recession?



Maybe blame Russia?



But then ask the same question, but, instead of the COVID period, look at the years following 2008. Wealth of the wealthiest rose and rose, and yet the economy remained stagnant.

 

[Jacob]

A reminder, just in case anybody has not been paying attention at the back!

 

[johna.clements]

I have never said the money should not have been spent. My concern is what happens now.

No you said that everybody should have got 10 marbles.

But you are unwilling to say how you would support the bussiness that were forced to close and how you would pay for the vaccinations etc.

 

[julianf]

A reminder, just in case anybody has not been paying attention at the back!

View attachment 146398

I have read your post but I think I will say that I do not understand the data.

You can now present it in a much simpler way, and then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[julianf]

No you said that everybody should have got 10 marbles.

But you are unwilling to say how you would support the bussiness that were forced to close and how you would pay for the vaccinations etc.

No. I've said that if you don't, currently have 10 marbles, then those marbles are elsewhere.

The analogy was to show what had happened to the cash. I don't have much of an opinion on the initial injection. Is that acceptable to you?

 

[johna.clements]

No. I've said that if you don't, currently have 10 marbles, then those marbles are elsewhere.

The analogy was to show what had happened to the cash. I don't have much of an opinion on the initial injection. Is that acceptable to you?

And I stated that your analogy misrepresents the situation.

You are assuming that business support and vaccination etc had no cost.

 

[Blackswanwood]

In a debate, there are points which can be discussed, and there are points which are taken as understood.

If you are trying to have, say, a scientific discussion, and someone keeps saying "2+2=5" and you keep explaining to them how 4 multiples of 1 actually equals 4... and then, after a while it becomes clear that the reason they wont accept that 2+2=4 is mostly that they don't want it to equal 4. Well, its disappointing.

Maybe that person will finally say that you will have to agree to disagree when presented with a collection of workings which, indeed, show that 2+2=4. It might not actually be that they do not understand, but more that they do not want to. Or that they were hoping for some other result where, eventually the sum worked out as 5.

There are points where it gets more complex. Discussing the credibility of the Laffer curve / Reganomincs, sure, but simple maths stuff... You start to wonder if the person really does have a problem, or, well, something else.


Your comment about the price of housing going up because of the divorce rate is, like i say, akin to me increasing the flood by spitting in it. Both are as true. Both have debatable relevance.

Find a graph somewhere of divorce rates, and find one of average house prices. Overlay them. See if there's much correlation.
Stick another graph on top showing events that create an increase in the money supply (eg QE) and see if there is a correlation.

I've not done it, but I know what the answer will be.


We can discuss at length if QE was the best approach, in the same way as we can look at the motivation for Reganomics, and what the consequences were, but trying to suggest that QE was not, without debate, the massive lever with which the asset market was raised after 2008 is akin to constantly saying 2+2=5.

Or that the marbles were spent, so no longer exist...

There were 28.1 million households in 2021 which is an increase of 6.8% over the last ten years. The number of single person households increased by 8.3% over the corresponding period. The housing stock has not increased at the same rate.

If you look back you’ll see I commented on housing stock and not housing prices (albeit the two are obviously linked).

I clearly mistook this for the general chat section of a woodworking forum and overlooked that it’s a major debating forum so apologise for the shabbiness of my response which has upset you. Perhaps if I get a t shirt that says QE caused prices to go up (which at no point have I disputed) you’ll feel vindicated?

I won’t be commenting further so feel free to misinterpret anything I’ve said if having the last word is important to you

 

[julianf]

You are assuming that business support and vaccination etc had no cost.

Why ever would I assume that?

 

[johna.clements]

Why ever would I assume that?

Your assumption that all the money is in one bucket or should be considered as in one bucket.