Signs that, if you\’re having a conversation about current political/economic conditions with someone, they have no fucking idea what they are talking about and can be ignored:
1) use of the term \”fiat money\”, as I\’ve already highlighted here
2) use of the term \”moral hazard\” in any context at all. Although there is, in theory, a real meaning for the term in sixth-form economics, the fact that 99% of uses in real life mean \”I think this thing is wrong, and this thing is to do with economics, and I know fuck-all about economics, but I know this word and it sounds like it ought to mean something in economics which is wrong\” disqualifies it from the lexicon of non-cunty words
3) use of the term \”profiteering\” for people who aren\’t cheating the rationing system during a state of total war. Otherwise, what they\’re doing is \”making a profit\” (oh, and wWith reference to UK utilities in particular: your electricity bill has gone up because there\’s a shortage of gas and oil; and the benefit has accrued to the Saudis and the Russians [or more accurately, the thieving tyrants who own said countries] not to your utilities provider)
4) non-use of the term \”that utter cunt who offered to get someone beaten up for money\” for Boris Johnson. Although even that isn\’t as bad as people who try and defend him: listen to yourselves, you daft fuckers, and feel the lameness… \”Well, yeah, he said he\’d get the chap beaten up, and never went to the police about it or even suggested that it was a bad idea – but he never actually arranged the beating, did he?\”. Yes, that makes it all OK then. \”well, yeah, he said procure a child prostitute for his paedo friend, and never went to the police about it or even suggested that it was a bad idea – but he never actually arranged the child, did he?\” is, I\’m sure, a defence that would absolve anyone who used it not only of legal blame, but also of all moral culpability in the matter.