Help me understand basic economics please.

[Weeks]

1. How does the economy gain more money? How does the government and other institutions introduce more money into the economy?
2. Inflation is bad because the rise in prices is not the same as the rise in salaries. Deflation is bad because prices fall meaning companies make less profit. Right?

[Phang]

1. Er, they don't. They just keep the money moving. Well, other than the minting of notes, but that's just to keep the supply of real currency constant.
2. Neither are inherently bad, but in any market which cannot instantly adapt to the change in the value of currency they are bad.

[Weeks]

"keeping the money moving" = making sure we don't all hurd it in our bank accounts? If it's moving, we spend more, companies make more money, they employe more people, those people have more money, they spend...

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Weeks

1. How does the economy gain more money? How does the government and other institutions introduce more money into the economy?

something to do with the central banks, i think. i never cared enough to get into the details, but somehow central banks have some control about the volume of money in circulation.

2. Inflation is bad because the rise in prices is not the same as the rise in salaries. Deflation is bad because prices fall meaning companies make less profit. Right?

an inflation-rate that is too high is bad for investments. if you, for example, take a mortgage on your house and suddenly the inflation rate jumps to 400% or something, you will be quite happy, but the bank who gave you that money (and its customers) would be pretty much ****ed. the saleries are more a cause of inflation than a problem. if you have an inflation rate of, lets say, 10% you will demand at least 10% more money from your boss, so that you can at least keep your current standard of living. that 10% more payment increases the costs for the company you work for, which in turn means that the will demand higher prices for their product, which in turn means you want higher wages, and so on.
deflation is bad because people spend less money. if you want something today, but you know tomorrow its going to be cheaper, you are probably going to wait until tommorrow until you buy it (or something like that).

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Weeks

"keeping the money moving" = making sure we don't all hurd it in our bank accounts? If it's moving, we spend more, companies make more money, they employe more people, those people have more money, they spend...

exactly. if people are spending all of their money, everyone ends up spending an increasing total as it worms its way back to them. As such, more items are being bought, unlocking profit in these items, which keeps the cycle going and means everyone has more stuff and that stuff is being designed quicker.

So goes the theory, anyway.

[Weeks]

ok. so the government needs to keep the money moving. in the same way your body needs to keep your blood moving and not getting stuck in your arteries (banks, saving etc). good circulations means growth.

however if too much money is moving around companies will grow too much for demand, as profits will increase, then salaries, then profits... until demand can't sustain this (why inflation is bad). this will then cause a decrease in profits and thus a decrease in employment. so i'm assuming this is the 'bust' in 'boom and bust', and the 'bust' basically means deflation will now occur - noone's got any money and no companies are employing anyone because of this. this is also why labour keep talking about having a stable economy - stopping growth getting out of control.

oh, and i'm now assuming money gets into an economy via the stock market. if our companies looks attractive, and are productive, people will buy our stock. so companies profit, they employ more people, those people gain money, and spend money...

another question: when the central banks print money, who do they give it to?
another: why is an increase in prices (inflation) good for morgage owners?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Weeks

another question: when the central banks print money, who do they give it to?
another: why is an increase in prices (inflation) good for morgage owners?

They distribute it to banks who ultimately distribute it to everyone else.

Higher inflation would mean your wages would be going up (potentially faster than your debt would be accruing interest). In reality interest rates generally would keep going up to keep above inflation (I think Brazil's central bank had a pledge they would keep interest rates at 5% over their inflation rate regardless).

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Weeks

another question: when the central banks print money, who do they give it to?

wiki says they buy government debt with it.

another: why is an increase in prices (inflation) good for morgage owners?

assuming the interest rate is fixed, the money you spend today (your debt) is worth less tomorrow (sorry, im really bad at explaining things today).

[G.K Zhukov]

As the economy grows, in terms of its ability to produce more (lets use Gross National Product), it needs more money. The Central Bank should therefore print more money, but not more than the increase in GNP. Otherwise it will cause quite high inflation, possbily going out of control (see Germany around 1930).

About deflation; See Japan in the 90's.

[Weeks]

so the central banks go: here hsbc, have some more money. hsbc goes: thanks, we'll give it to our customers via loans. so surely growth can be stimulated simply by printing more money?

so the banks basically control the flow of money in the economy, which is in turn controlled by interest rates. if interest rates are high people will spend less. if they're low people will borrow and thus spend.

how does the bank of england inforce interest rates?

[Tomkat]

More money going round means people can buy more things with it (less likely to be misers).
-> More people buying more things means that more businesses can start up, as they're getting a decent income.
--> This income is then reflected back on the employees, by raising their wages.
---> Because the wages go up, more money is going round, meaning people can buy more things.

This is good for the country. More people having money means that the government gets more money from taxes. More money from taxes means a better country (health, education, transport etc), supposedly. It also means low unemployment rate, as businesses have more money to employ people.


Inflation isn't necessarily bad. It's just something that happens (as demonstrated above).

Deflation occurs when the government spends too much.
For instance:
-> They tax everyone a bit more to get more money.
--> The populace then has less money as a whole, so is less likely to spend money on things.
---> Businesses have to make cutbacks, as they are selling less.
----> These cutbacks mean people have even less money.


Deflation can also occur when a government simply prints money for itself. This happened during the 2nd World War, with Germany. Money was hardly worth anything - people would have to bring a wheelbarrow full of money to do their shopping, as there was so much money floating around because the govt had made loads to buy military stuff.


That was a very simplified version of how it works (could you guess?).

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Deflation can also occur when a government simply prints money for itself. This happened during the 2nd World War, with Germany. Money was hardly worth anything - people would have to bring a wheelbarrow full of money to do their shopping, as there was so much money floating around because the govt had made loads to buy military stuff.
.

No it can't.
If a loaf of bread suddenly costs a wheelbarrow full of money, how is that cost less than 2 and 6 or whatever?

Printing more money is one way (not a very good way admittedly) of increasing the country's output. Seigniorage (if we're going to talk about things using proper terms) only works though when there is "slugishness" in the economy, consequently is of no use today. It shifts the LM curve out.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Flavius

Inflation is bad .

So why does the ECB set their target rate of inflation, ie the optimal rate, at 2%?

We need a small amount of inflation in the economy, not least because it stops us going anywhere near deflation - we don;t want to end up like Japan do we?

[G.K Zhukov]

Short term growth will be the result of more money. But in the long term, only increased productivity can do it.
For a certain period you can put in more factors into the economy (capital(as money or materials), labour), but in the end the increased production of more capital invested will fall close to 0%. And people only have 24 hours per day anyways, so you can increase the working hours for instance, but you go on increasing it every year forever. Besides, if you work 16 hours a day, you might end up producing less than if you worked 12.

Also, as the capitalst takes profit from the added value of the products the workers make, the demand isnt strong enough for more investment.
There is to much capital (money) who cannot be invested, becouse demand is weak (ordinary people have to little money to buy all the products that could be produced).

Say if the general rate of profit is 10%. That means that if you invest 100quid in something, you will get 110 quid next year. Now lets put the number of private capital looking for profitable investment at 10000000 billion dollars. If that capital gets invested and have 10% profit for roughly 8 years, it will have doubled. But the demand havent doubled. The rise in real wages tend to be around 1-2% annualy. That is why there is 1000 and 1000 of billions of dollars beeing moved around to find profit in speculative stuff like currencies, raw market, hedge markets, bonds and short term "investment" on the stock exchanges.

[Weeks]

Originally Posted by Flavius

More currency in the market = lower price. Less currency in the market = higher price. Generally, central banks do not set the interest rate but instead, control it by setting the money supply.

surely this is fundamentally wrong, unless i'm misunderstanding you. if there's more currency in the market then prices will rise as companies know that people have more money now. if there's less currency in the market then prices will fall as companies know that people have less money now?

the bank of england sets interest rates, by that they may mean they're changing the supply of money, i don't know.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Weeks

surely this is fundamentally wrong, unless i'm misunderstanding you. if there's more currency in the market then prices will rise as companies know that people have more money now. if there's less currency in the market then prices will fall as companies know that people have less money now?

the bank of england sets interest rates, by that they may mean they're changing the supply of money, i don't know.

i think he meant the price of currency (in terms of other currencies or gold or goats or whatever) changes. if he didn't he's wrong.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Weeks

surely this is fundamentally wrong, unless i'm misunderstanding you. if there's more currency in the market then prices will rise as companies know that people have more money now. if there's less currency in the market then prices will fall as companies know that people have less money now?

the bank of england sets interest rates, by that they may mean they're changing the supply of money, i don't know.

I belive you are thinking about two different things now.

1. Yes, more money = inflation

2. Higher interest rates = less investment, becouse some projects that were profitable with the lower interst rate is now not more profitable than having money in the bank. Also there will be less spending, becouse people will have more money to spend if they postpone it for a year.

[Tomkat]

Some people are really bad at explaining what they mean, no matter how much they know about something

[Weeks]

so are interest rates basically set by the central bank giving money to the other banks? if the bank of england gives banks more money, they'll decrease interest rates as they've got more money, thus giving people incentives to borrow, thus there'll be more money in the economy. if the bank of england gives banks less money, they'll increase interest rates as they want to be safe with the money they already have, thus less money in the economy.

ignoring speculative demand, the price of currency is dependent on how much demand there is. if interest rates are low people will demand more money, so the price of currency increases.

a high price of currency (always in comparision with others) means prices must be low in order for foreigners to buy our shit. a low price of currency means prices can be a bit higher.

so the bank of england needs to make sure prices don't get too high, else companies will price themselves out of the international market and the standard disadvantages that uncontrolled inflation brings.

so it's not too complex this economic shit then? christ.

p.s. i'm still unsure how the domestic demand for money increases the value of our currency in comparison with other currencies.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Stew

No it can't.
If a loaf of bread suddenly costs a wheelbarrow full of money, how is that cost less than 2 and 6 or whatever?

Printing more money is one way (not a very good way admittedly) of increasing the country's output. Seigniorage (if we're going to talk about things using proper terms) only works though when there is "slugishness" in the economy, consequently is of no use today. It shifts the LM curve out.

That is too simplistic a point as to why seigniorage isn't effective.

In basic terms: seigniorage is just another form of taxation. Governments exploit the monopoly power of central banks creating the medium of exchange to acquire valuable resources from the private sector. Authorities exchange money (which is costless to produce) against other goods and services. Basically its as if these goods and services were just taken away.

Seigniorage if used (and it was used during the medieval times), is usually used to finance debt burdens. However the income is too limited to make it a major factor in large-debt stabilization. Seigniorage basically leads to money growth, which leads to inflation and debt relief via the inflation tax.

The reason it doesn't work in practice is that tax works only if inflation is unexpected....so when debt-holdens anticipate inflation they demand a nominal interest rate which will compensate them for the expected erosion of their principal. The nominal interst rate rises in line with the expected inflation leaving the real I rates unchanged. So there is no gain from inflation for the government and no cost to (bond-holders etc..).

Why did i just tell you this? I had this exact same question in one of my exams in the 3rd year. Horrible concept , but it really has very little to do with a "sluggish" economy.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Weeks

p.s. i'm still unsure how the domestic demand for money increases the value of our currency in comparison with other currencies.

3 years of economics and a degree and the best i can explain will involve horrible graphs and complex formulas. You lose all the simplicity involved in basic concepts at uni

So i've taken the liberty to try and find you a simple explanation.

http://www.s-cool.co.uk/topic_quickl...s=&ebl=&elc=13

Read that. It will explain the basics of exchange rates and will answer your question

[Cannon_Fodder]

money is shit.

[dda]

Originally Posted by Weeks

1. How does the economy gain more money? How does the government and other institutions introduce more money into the economy?
2. Inflation is bad because the rise in prices is not the same as the rise in salaries. Deflation is bad because prices fall meaning companies make less profit. Right?

Governments can increase the money supply, either by simply printing more which they then spend or by borrowing more which is backed by their power to print more money. Governments can always pay off their debt by printing up more mone so governmental debt is also part of the money supply.

Inflation is bad if you own debt or your income is fixed.

Inflation is good if you have an income which will also inflate and you owe money.

When, during the 70%, I was buying a home, the inflation rate went up but my house payment didn't. I started getting more money for my work. My debt burden was reduced by inflation. very nice.

Now I am old and in a few years I will be retiring and my pension will have a 3% maximum cost of living adjustment to my pension. I own my house and have no debts. Inflation would be very, very bad for me.

[dda]

Originally Posted by sniborp

money is shit.

I wish someone would take a big shit in my bank account.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Some people are really bad at explaining what they mean, no matter how much they know about something

Considering this

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Deflation can also occur when a government simply prints money for itself. This happened during the 2nd World War, with Germany. Money was hardly worth anything - people would have to bring a wheelbarrow full of money to do their shopping, as there was so much money floating around because the govt had made loads to buy military stuff.

I think you'd have to number yourself in that barmy army. If you need a wheel barrow to carry around the money it's called inflation dude.

Originally Posted by Weeks

1. How does the economy gain more money?

People do their shit better than they used to.

[G.K Zhukov]

Also Tomkat is wrong. It wasnt during WWII, but around late 1920's and up to around 1931, if my memory serves me correct.

His logic is also flawed, since during much of the war, alot was rationated in Germany. And of that who was not rationated, there wasnt that much around, since more and more of the production went to the war effort.

[JonnyBGood]

I presumed it had happened during WWII as well and that's what tomkat was referring to as the german hyper-inflation of the 20s is such a landmark case in economics.









So I hear you're thinking about going into a career in teaching tomkat...

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think you'd have to number yourself in that barmy army. If you need a wheel barrow to carry around the money it's called inflation dude.

"Oops"

I meant inflation.

I shouldn't have included the Germany case - I read about it ages and ages ago, and I was just using it as a "RL" example. It's all very well giving Weeks all these theories, but a lot of you guys are just jargonning it up and making it hard to understand (when it doesn't need to be).

I probably did get the dates wrong - I assumed it was in WW2. The principles remain the same (except for the whole inflation not deflation thing).

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So I hear you're thinking about going into a career in teaching tomkat...

I teach Business Studies, not Economics. As such, my knowledge of Economics is only in the business sense.

I do know that when someone is asking about something they know relatively little about, giving them degree-level definitions with a load of jargon is not going to help them.

[s|k]

Here is something I don't think anyone has mentioned yet (I did try and check for it):

You're question was how does the government create more money.

Banks create money (I don't mean that they coin and print and bills - I mean they multiply money into more money through lending). This creation of money is regulated.

They do it this way: You go to the bank and deposit 1,000 in your savings account. The bank now has $1,000. It is allowed to loan this money out, more than once at the same time, but each time they must keep a portion of it. So in comes borrower A, by law the bank must keep 10% (I made this figure up for illustration) of your deposit, and borrower A just happens to need $900, and so the bank now loans that $900 it has to this guy. Here comes the tricky part, that I only vaguely understand. Borrower B comes in and need some money. The bank can loan out your saving s again, but only 90% of what they already lent to someone else. So this guy happens to need $810 and they can give it to him based on the money you gave them.

So from $1,000, the bank can create more money. Already with just two people coming in, from your $1,000 they lent $1,710. The rate at which they must reduce the amount they can loan out is called a 'reserve,' that's how the government controls money creation.

Here's a better explanation from wikipedia:

The operative notion of easy money is that the Fed creates new bank reserves (also known as "federal funds", trades in the "money market"), which let the banks lend out more money. These loans get spent, and the proceeds get deposited at other banks. Whatever is not required to be held as reserves is then lent out again, and through the magic of the "money multiplier", loans and bank deposits go up by many times the initial injection of reserves.

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

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. Or maybe they did and I just didn't catch it.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by s|k

Here is something I don't think anyone has mentioned yet (I did try and check for it):

You're question was how does the government create more money.

Banks create money (I don't mean that they coin and print and bills - I mean they multiply money into more money through lending). This creation of money is regulated.

They do it this way: You go to the bank and deposit 1,000 in your savings account. The bank now has $1,000. It is allowed to loan this money out, more than once at the same time, but each time they must keep a portion of it. So in comes borrower A, by law the bank must keep 10% (I made this figure up for illustration) of your deposit, and borrower A just happens to need $900, and so the bank now loans that $900 it has to this guy. Here comes the tricky part, that I only vaguely understand. Borrower B comes in and need some money. The bank can loan out your saving s again, but only 90% of what they already lent to someone else. So this guy happens to need $810 and they can give it to him based on the money you gave them.

So from $1,000, the bank can create more money. Already with just two people coming in, from your $1,000 they lent $1,710. The rate at which they must reduce the amount they can loan out is called a 'reserve,' that's how the government controls money creation.

Here's a better explanation from wikipedia:



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

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. Or maybe they did and I just didn't catch it.

This is a no go area by some economists (when you start analyzing in depth so that is probably why you haven't heard much). The rational is obvious but when you go behind it, it is still a relatively newly explored area of economics. Fortunately i was taught by Richard Werner http://www.profitfund.com/advisors.shtml who is at the forefront of trying to get this economics reasoning into the mainstream and was my favourite course/lecturer (that it is money supply - credit creation, which determines nom gdp growth)

So from the top of my head i'll give you a little understanding into credit creation:

Like you said the overall banking system creates money and only CB's can create new credit and money and use it to settle transactions directly via the main settlement system of the economy. Banks essentially do not have money but create it.

The total value of transactions must be as large as the money used to pay for these transactions. This is done by the provision of transactions and accounting services, and serves as the settlement system of non cash transaction in the economy. Also banks in their role as portfolio managers have much in common with other intermediaries acting in this capacity (basically markets do not clear demand and supply, markets are rationed and supply determined by quantities not supply).

So...basically banks ration credit to max profit. Loan demand is always greater than supply and the equilibrium is usually alawys too high. The credit market is rationed and supply i s determined.

[Zar]

Now because you people keep asking what is money again i'll try and explain it from my head. I might get parts slightly wrong because i studied this course about 5 months ago (i got a 1st in the module so im fairly well clued up on it) but i'll do the best i can. Note that this is a more controversial area of economics.

What is money??

Tbh there is no definitive answer. Consider that 95% of money is created through the process of credit creation that i explained in the previous reply. This credit creation measures the purchasing parity used for transactions at teh time of measure. Basically creating new money out of nothing (and for the economist out there - the rational for that is explained by mv=pq - ->credit for financial transactions rises, the illusion of a velocity decline remains constant). All transactions for which money is used are part of and accurately measured by yhe nominal gdp.

It is not really surprising that the velocity decline in the past here financial and real estate transctions increased disproportionately. This is due to credit used for financial transactions.

Basically banks create the money and are licensed to create money through extensions of loans. Their main role is to function as the creators of the bulk of money supply. So banks are basically direct financing.

The determinants of growth then - are

for nom gdp growth to take place to increase the amount of credit creation used for transactions. (rat behind argu - --> change (PR, Y) = V,e change Q). If actual growt approaches its max potential growth rate there is a further increase in credit creation and will deliver actual nominal gdp growth and inflation. If the actual gdp l lags behind potential growth there are deflationary pressures . If the economy is at full employment (i think - not too sure about this one) for any given productivity, an increase in the gdp based on credit creation causes an increase in in prices, similarly an increase in credit used for real estate trans will lead to an increase in land prices.

A little history then (on japan as werner was obsessed with japan). In the 80's and 90's credit creation for financial transactions produced japanee capital outflows. If banks create new purchasing power and land for financial transactons (Cf) then the amount of output will stay unchanged, since there is no production of new goods. Without an increase in credit used for GDP transactions nominal gdp cant go up. Hence japan simply screwed itself over.

Back to the original question (sort of). Government debt can thuis be financed through credit creation as s|k has mentioned. Public debt can go down through fiscal policy, funded by bank borrowing (which is crediy creation).

Hopefully someone will read this and understand it :/

[Tomkat]

This is why I greatly prefer Business Studies to Economics.

Theorising real life events with all kinds of different variables.

Ugh.

No wonder Economic Autism has reared its ugly head.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by s|k

Here is something I don't think anyone has mentioned yet (I did try and check for it):

You're question was how does the government create more money.

Banks create money (I don't mean that they coin and print and bills - I mean they multiply money into more money through lending). This creation of money is regulated.

They do it this way: You go to the bank and deposit 1,000 in your savings account. The bank now has $1,000. It is allowed to loan this money out, more than once at the same time, but each time they must keep a portion of it. So in comes borrower A, by law the bank must keep 10% (I made this figure up for illustration) of your deposit, and borrower A just happens to need $900, and so the bank now loans that $900 it has to this guy. Here comes the tricky part, that I only vaguely understand. Borrower B comes in and need some money. The bank can loan out your saving s again, but only 90% of what they already lent to someone else. So this guy happens to need $810 and they can give it to him based on the money you gave them.

So from $1,000, the bank can create more money. Already with just two people coming in, from your $1,000 they lent $1,710. The rate at which they must reduce the amount they can loan out is called a 'reserve,' that's how the government controls money creation.

that's not quite right. the bank can't loan out more money than they have. but what they can do is have the same money multiple times.

in your description, borrower A borrows 900, then he buys a computer from C. C puts that 900 in the bank. now B can borrow 810 and buy a slightly crappier computer than A...

the reason people don't mention it is because it isn't normally used to control the economy. when people want to control the money supply,they could hugely change it by bumping that %, but they don't because it is too sensitive (maybe).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

"Oops"

I meant inflation.

I shouldn't have included the Germany case - I read about it ages and ages ago, and I was just using it as a "RL" example. It's all very well giving Weeks all these theories, but a lot of you guys are just jargonning it up and making it hard to understand (when it doesn't need to be).

I probably did get the dates wrong - I assumed it was in WW2. The principles remain the same (except for the whole inflation not deflation thing).

The germany case was actually mainly due to the cost of WWI, the pressure of the reparation demands and the fact the government paid striking workers in the ruhr (which had been invaded by the french and belgians when germany fell behind in her reparation repayments). The problem with economics is that it genuinely is difficult to understand at times. It's also only slightly more interesting than watching two walls of drying paint argue about the metaphysical indeterminism of the speed of wall drying and whether or not this bears a close approximation to the relative merits of each wall.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's also only slightly more interesting than watching two walls of drying paint argue about the metaphysical indeterminism of the speed of wall drying and whether or not this bears a close approximation to the relative merits of each wall.

I'd be absolutely fascinated if I saw two walls talking to each other.

[Marilyn Manson]

It would depend upon what their accent was. If they were speaking with a Dutch accent, we could probably sell tickets.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Zar

I'd be absolutely fascinated if I saw two walls talking to each other.

You should visit Ireland more often.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's also only slightly more interesting than watching two walls of drying paint argue about the metaphysical indeterminism of the speed of wall drying and whether or not this bears a close approximation to the relative merits of each wall.

Don't let Stew know this.
He changed his name so that his middle name was "Economics", he loves it so much

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

He changed his name so that his middle name was "Economics", he loves it so much

That boy needs therapy

[Weeks]

I quite like economics. It's just like learning a really ****ed up programming language which suffers from far too many semantic errors.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

That boy needs therapy

Lie down on the couch! what does that mean?
You’re a nut! you’re crazy in the coconut!
What does that mean? that boy needs therapy

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Weeks

I quite like economics.

Didn't you say previously that you found the EU interesting?

[Weeks]

Yes. I also did a degree in computer science.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Don't let Stew know this.
He changed his name so that his middle name was "Economics", he loves it so much

I like econimics in theory. What I don't like is when it becomes too theoretical
I think it's interesting to know why things happen and what effects things can have on each other.
The problem is, it's very hard to keep things simple because changing one variable can often lead to (or be caused by) changes in others, hence you have to bring in all these factors into play.
Where it gets really tedious is where you start with something you know can't exist, or is purely unfeasible - I see no point in this.

Anyway dude, I'm not Stewart "Economics" Baker now, I'm Stewart "Auditor - studying to be a chartered accountant" Baker now. It's no wonder I don't have much of a life