h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

,what> and other such noises of confusion. Am I being ruthlessly teased for appologising for being pedantic in a thread where pedantry is the accepted norm?
Or what?

What.
Definitely what.

Welcome to the paranoid pedants' protectorate.

Hmm, an explanation of the comments would be nice or is this an exclusatory group I have bumped into?

Sorry, Ictoan,

That vestboy is so quick off the mark with his call my bluff gems, I completely lost my sense of proportion when I got in first.

So far as I am concerned, pedantry is welcomed; but it is helpful if you wear your thickest skin when practising the noble art. Not everyone is able to appreciate the skill and patience involved.

ah, an example of my lack of self confidence again. My thickest skin could easily be used as tracing paper I am afraid. One of my weaknesses

>> ..definitely not all from the same debt-ridden nation.. <<

Yes, exactly not. Or as you say, 'definitely not'.
That's why I used the definite article.

All nations definitely have debts. And each of us would refer to our own as 'the' national debt. I guess that's why I used the definite article.

And it's one of them catch phrases used by politicians, bureaucrats and economists. The phrase is a cliche as written, like 'the cats pajamas', 'the end of the world', 'the golden years' or 'the heebie jeebies'. That's why I used the definite article.

And because of the air of bureaucratic cliche it has an almost French need to have the definite article, like '(viva) le difference', 'le meme chose', 'c'est le guerre' and 'le debt nationale'. That's why I used the definite article.

Oh dear, I'm repeating myself already and haven't really yet made a definite point. It must be one of them intuitive thingies. I mean we all see 'the' world from 'a' different point of view but seem to think we have 'the' answers. At least I thought I did. Now I'm not as definite as when I started. Always a good thing.

Still, a national debt is always a source of inspiration when the mind has otherwise gone blank or foul, having as it does several attractive properties as a conceptual formula. It is a negative value. It exists only on paper. It can only be imagined. It is an idea, an ethereal concept that is hard to back up with a tangible reality, like 'the gold standard', 'the apocalypse', 'the holy grail' or 'the ides of march'. And yet it encompasses all we value and believe as a nation.

Every mind imagines it as something different but we all call it as if we all definitely had the same one in mind. That's why I used the definite article.


~jwf~

Does that mean you can lend me a fiver?

Maybe one day we will have to add up all "the" national debts to make it a "world debt" as we lock limbs with Mars or Venus in an economic wrestling match on a galactical level.

Would it not be a zero-sum, though?

Who...I mean...to whom are all these national debts owed?

Mainly owed to Sirius Cybernetics Corporation and Megadodo Publications, but Eccentrica Gallumbits also has a claim to plenty.

>>Would it not be a zero-sum, though?

Who...I mean...to whom are all these national debts owed?<<

Eventually, to private in-duh-viduals, although few of them lend directly to governments.

The way it works is through Government Bonds. These have a fixed interest rate and term. By buying them, you are effectively lending the Government money at a fixed rate of interest.

Mostly, they are bought by investment houses and pension funds. All of these are, ultimately, owned by shareholders, who are private individuals.

Incidentally, the British ones have gold around the outside, which is why they are known as gilt-edged stocks. There is a vigorous after-market in which gilt-edged stocks are traded in London and other financial centres. "Gilt-edged" has therefore entered the language as meaning copper-bottomed, an investment that will not fail, as it is underwritten by the Government; and, as we all know, Governments (and countries) do not default on their debts. Oh, the innocent world we lived in when *that* was the case!

So no, not a zero-sum. Effectively, all this national debt is owed to you, me and everyone else.

And no, you can't have it back, just yet.

RF

I know that plaguesville has suggested that "The OED admits no connection between balm(y) and barm(y)." And yes Shirley, I agree, there is nothing crazy about warm summer breezes. And yet, 'balmy' is listed as a synonym for 'barmy'.

So just to be clear, did anyone come up with a way that 'balmy' could have come to mean 'barmy' other than the missed understanding of the spelling based on the way it is pronounced by Brits and mis-perceived by non-Brits?

There's been so much cleverness round here of late, the pearls are often disguised in enough subtlety to camouflage a camel.


~jwf~

It's nice to think that the government owes money to us but in fact we need to ask where money comes from. This is where the virtual world becomes sensible and easy to understand.

In the UK one of the English Kings by the name of George gave this facilty (to print, therefore create, money) to the banks many years ago. Banks lend money to governments. The banks don't have the money so they have to create it. The money that didn't exist is spent by the government but now they owe more than the money that didn't exist in the first place because the banks have added interest charges. Governments can tax money back as income but so long as banks can add interest to the money owed it would never be a zero sum.

The UK Government issued its own currency to cover the cost of the fleet in the first world war. This money was taxed back and no interest was paid. This seems to make sense but it is not something which has been repeated.

I've written a couple of things on money in the guide - you might want to look at the Guernsey Trick and some other bits and pieces.

...so what you're saying is that money DOESN'T in fact grow on trees, as I've thought all my life, but is instead....conjured out of thin air?

Yes. Sort of. Have a huge grain of salt ready for this over simplification.
Once upon a time money was a symbol of wealth held elsewhere. It was a receipt for food or something valuable and could be traded in place of handing over sacks of corn or whatever. The recipient of the receipt could, if they wished trade it on or go to the store and cash it in for the grain.
Gold was seen as being valuable and in short supply and started to be accepted instead of the receipts.
Paper money issued by the bank of England, saying something like "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five pounds." is in fact an empty promise. Originally the Bank held gold to the value of the money in circulation (the gold standard). We abandoned this decades ago and money hasn't been backed by anything for ages. One professor of economics has calculated that there is about 80 times more money in the world than there are things to buy with it.

Will you lend me a fiver now?

Money is just an idea or concept. It does not exist except in people's minds.

RF

~jwf~

I have just done a quick survey of online dictionaries for Balmy / Barmy.
A simple rule of thumb, if the URL ends in .co.uk then there is no link between balmy / barmy.
If the website ends in .com then it lists barmy as per your findings.

So this would seem to point to a British English usage of 2 different words for two different usages. And since this is the BritEng thread perhaps we should go with that definition?
Whereas the ex colonies seem to insist on winding us up by deliberately confusing the two terms and claiming they cannot understand our clearly pronounced accents. noworramean?

p.s findings were:-
balmy=barmy : Miriam Webster, 'word central', dictionarylink.com and your own favourite dicdotcom (all .com)

balmy != barmy:- OED (says it all for me!), Cambridge Press, freesearch uk dictionary. (all .co.uk)

I hate to rely on the Redmond Beast, but the MS Word thesaurus (in British English) also lists 'balmy' and 'barmy' as two completely different words with no overlap in meaning.

Simply put, looks like someone somewhere misheard, assumed it was the same word but with alternative spelling, put that in a dictionary and then everyone else that read it assumed it was right until it was right. For them anyway.

*Steers self round to talk about UK English and sneakily keep the subject on money*
Is it just me, or does "one pence" make your teeth grate?

not if you put it in a sandwich first.