Re: Applications for Charity Status with Commission.

I dont' think that is necessarily the case? But I will try to find out. In fact I think the dutch also have a higher average house price than we do.

>
Reply to
Stephen GoldenGun
Loading thread data ...

I have to admit I'm just skimming these threads (you obviously have lots of spare time :) but I can't let that one go ... *deflation* is negative inflation, recession is negative *growth*, as I'm sure you know really. You can have potentially any combination.

I can't let that one go either, because it's one of my hobby horses ... I think part of the confusion is that people (even economists if they aren't careful) use "inflation" to mean at least three different things. One is pure monetary inflation. If the government just doubled all the money overnight, gave people another pound for every pound they have, then fairly rapidly you would have 100% inflation (likewise in Italy the numerical prices of things dropped by about a factor 1000 when they switched from lire to euros). That kind of inflation *cannot* be different for different things, because it relates to the value of money, whatever you buy with it. To first order that kind of inflation/deflation makes no difference to the economy, but it creates second-order problems because prices don't adjust instantly (unless it happens by fiat as with a currency change - and even then there are plenty of glitches).

Secondly you have price changes due to real changes in cost. The price of a given amount of computing power has been dropping - "deflating" - for several decades, simply because we've been getting better at making chips. That kind of deflation is pretty much an unqualified good, unless you happen to be a company still trying to use old methods when your competitors have lowered their costs. Conversely, if prices rise because real costs are rising (e.g. transport costs go up because of tighter terrorism security) that's pretty much an unqualified bad thing. In general, technological advances mean that real costs are going down for most things.

The third thing, which is what most of the deflation debate is actually about, is prices changes due to changes in the supply/demand position. If demand increases faster than supply basic economic theory (and common sense!) says that prices rise, and vice versa. That can easily be different for different things, houses are in short supply but cars and computers are not.

However, it's not so clear-cut whether inflation or deflation are good or bad things in this case. From an overall economy position, you would like to use all the production capacity you have and hence you would like to be biased towards the inflation/shortage side, and obviously producers also like that. Historically consumers also seem to like boom times, but it depends whether you're rich or poor, because by definition some people are "demanding" goods that they aren't getting (those people without houses are not too happy about the boom). Also booms tend to turn easily to busts, if the economy has no spare capacity it's fragile to any disruption, and if companies are rushing to increase production capacity they can easily overshoot.

On the other side, having overcapacity is inefficient, and it may reduce future growth: if companies are not using the capacity they have they may not invest to increase it. However, in that situation people can get what they want and companies fight for their business, which is not so bad for consumers. Also having slack means having resilience - the new electricity pricing regime is likely to reduce generating overcapacity, but it's far from clear that we really want powercuts on cold days, however efficient it may be! My feeling is that in the medium term, whether it's good or bad depends on what the response is. What should happen is for the least efficient producers to go out of business, which will encourage more efficient producers to invest again. However, what often happens is that walking-wounded companies are propped up by the state (cars, airlines ...) and continue to drag the rest down.

Reply to
Stephen Burke

Um, heavier than photons?

Reply to
Timothy Lee

No, send your money to the Charitable Association to Save Horses, or if that won't fit on your cheques, just put cash!

Reply to
Timothy Lee

So you mean to say the Charity Commision do not have juristiction over Scotland? Thats amazingly unbelievable! So what happens if a Scotish charity, which as you say, has registered with ..FICO, desires to raise funds from England? Are they allowed to do that? or not?

I have decided that in order to get my charity status sorted out without any worries, I am writting to various local accountants/lawyers asking if they will do the necessary, but in a charitable way! In return we will include them in our promotional literature. So I used my head to get around that one.

Reply to
Stephen GoldenGun

Yes and yes.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

Honestly, why do they make life so much more simple in scotland? Or is it just that the Scots are more trustworthy than the English and therefore the English have to have so many special extra rules and regs to avoid the crooks taking advantage?

>
Reply to
Stephen GoldenGun

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.