Private debt involves the lending activity carried out by entities other than banks. This can include both Peer to Peer lending as well as lending by more specialised entities and companies that focus on particular segments of the economy.Well, I have to interrupt my train of thought to say debt is not lending: "private debt" is not "lending activity". It is not "borrowing activity" either. Debt is not an activity.
It seems that people with money to lend, who want to avoid going thru banks, now engage in "private lending". And, incidentally, to undermine the arguments of the many people who say excessive 'private' (as opposed to 'public') debt is a big problem for our economy, they have decided to call private lending activity "private debt". They've redefined the term "private debt" in a way that makes all prior concern about private debt irrelevant.
But I don't mean to talk about that here. I'm talking about it elsewhere. My topic here is the second sentence in the Prestige Funds quote, the one that begins "This can include both..." but I figure you might not know what the "this" refers to if I don't say. Especially since they are changing the meanings of words.
Enough of that! Focus with me on part of their second sentence:
This can include both Peer to Peer lending as well as lending by more specialised entities...Why do people think they have to say both X as well as Y? Where the hell did that come from? If you say "both X and Y" it means both X and Y. Or you could omit the "both" and say X as well as Y. That would also mean both X and Y. Isn't it obvious?
What do they think "both X and Y" means? What do they think "X as well as Y" means? Why do they think they should merge those phrases? Drives me nuts.
What I'm thinkin is, it's like a double-negative. Only it's not negation, it's inclusion, so "both X as well as Y" is a double inclusion. Would that mean exclusion, the way a double negative means not no? I don't really think so, but I'm sure the people who use it have no idea.
Both this as well as that?
No.
2 comments:
That’s terrible writing, one mangled element after another. I cringe at involve, a verb that’s overused to the point of meaninglessness. You can probably tell a lot about a company from the care that does or doesn’t go into this kind of webpage.
Both this as well as that, again.
From The Federal Reserve’s “Dual Mandate”: The Evolution of an Idea (PDF, 6 pages) at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond:
"During its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has evolved considerably regarding both the scope of its duties and the actions it has taken to meet them. Prominent during most of its existence, though, has been the idea that it is responsible for both securing the value of the nation’s currency as well as promoting employment."
It's like a pothole on the highway: You're going along fine, all's right with the world, and suddenly BANG! When I hit both-as-well-as at speed, I lose focus on the thought the writer was attempting to convey.
It's unfortunate, as I found the tale otherwise most interesting. Oh, well there was also the steadfastly pursuing:
"Eventually, the Fed’s policies of steadfastly pursuing price stability did contribute..."
Not the Fed's steadfast pursuit of price stability?
I don't think it's just personal preference. No.
Post a Comment