Board "Style book" and Grammar

nickmason

LydiaJ wrote: »

nickmason is right about "effect" as a verb, although it's very rarely used now. The only use I can think of is the rather stilted "used a crow-bar to effect an entrance to the house".

Politicians often claim to effect change.

"Affect" as a noun is a technical term in psychology. I think it may also have other meanings that have become obsolete, including I think something legal, but I can't look it up because I've lent someone the book in which I want to look it up.

(Or should that be "up in which I want to look it" so as not to end with a preposition? :rotfl:)

Ah, Churchill.

nearlynew

Davesnave wrote: »

In EA details, the confusion of 'formerly' and 'formally' makes me cringe, as do 'dorma windows,' but no doubt we all have pet hates.

I often see estate agents describing a house as being in a "sort after area"

That really winds me up.

nicko33

LydiaJ wrote: »

but I can't look it up because I've lent someone the book in which I want to look it up.

.
how about
"...but I can't look it up because I've lent the book in which I want to look it up to someone." ?

GDB2222

Generali wrote: »

What is the difference? I thought they were the same, ie that old investors' gains were paid using new investors' funds rather than any genuine increase in capital value.

I don't think that a Ponzi scheme needs to grow very much. It can continue as long as you can bring in enough new money to replace money withdrawn. Pyramid schemes require an exponential increase in numbers.

BitterAndTwisted

Something I've noticed of late is the substitution of the word "of" for "to". As in, "what do you think to that?" I don't know where it's come from but I'd rather like it to go back there.

chris_m

nicko33 wrote: »

Is it?
I would have assumed it was an Americanism.
"There ain't no noun that can't be verbed"

Verbificated, surely?

:D:D

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

What is the difference? I thought they were the same, ie that old investors' gains were paid using new investors' funds rather than any genuine increase in capital value.
.

A pyramid scheme is a form of fraud similar in some ways to a Ponzi scheme, relying as it does on a mistaken belief in a nonexistent financial reality, including the hope of an extremely high rate of return.

However, several characteristics distinguish these schemes from Ponzi schemes:

• • In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer acts as a "hub" for the victims, interacting with all of them directly. In a pyramid scheme, those who recruit additional participants benefit directly. (In fact, failure to recruit typically means no investment return.)
  • A Ponzi scheme claims to rely on some esoteric investment approach (insider connections, etc.) and often attracts well-to-do investors; whereas pyramid schemes explicitly claim that new money will be the source of payout for the initial investments.
  • A pyramid scheme is bound to collapse much faster because it requires exponential increases in participants to sustain it. By contrast, Ponzi schemes can survive simply by persuading most existing participants to "reinvest" their money, with a relatively small number of new participants.

A bubble: A bubble is similar to a Ponzi scheme in that one participant gets paid by contributions from a subsequent participant (until inevitable collapse), but it is not the same as a Ponzi scheme.

A bubble involves ever-rising prices in an open market (for example stock, housing, or tulip bulbs) where prices rise because buyers bid more because prices are rising.

Bubbles are often said to be based on the "greater fool" theory.

As with the Ponzi scheme, the price exceeds the intrinisic value of the item, but unlike the Ponzi scheme, there is no person misrepresenting the intrinisic value; investors typically know they are in a bubble.

Social Security or State Pension schemes are also often mistakenly compared to Ponzi Schemes.

The U.S. Social Security Administration has provided the following response to the "Ponzi scheme" accusation:

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs, and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes or any other fraudulent form of financing; it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

lemonjelly

2 words...

same difference.:mad:

Same thing, or no difference. Pick one of those, & use it.

A._Badger

Surprisingly often seen on this forum - 'Torys' instead of 'Tories'.

lemonjelly

Or...Pacific, instead of specific! Gah!:mad:

I'm not sure I should keep reading this thread, I'll get a coronary...