Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Let's also not forget the supply of free labour the US had, which certainly gave it a kickstart.
We could throw in The New Deal in to 4kicks posts as well
The industrial revolution certainly appeared to only lift one or two boats leving the rest in horrendous conditions so I'm not sure it's a great argument...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Chandlers book "The Visible Hand" makes the point that the emergence of the US as a dominant economy was driven by two things, firstly a monopoly of the railways and telegraph, then secondly the centrally planned WWII manufacturing.
Without reading the book, surely the fact that they spend 5 years fighting the 2 world wars compared to the major European powers fighting 10, and their geographical location (i.e. not having their factories and infrastructure flattened by bombing) must have been a fairly big boost to them.0 -
FTFYChandlers book "The Visible Hand" makes the claim...0 -
True, no hard numbers but from a variety of sources so fair point.
Size matters, and the Norwegians had way more oil money to play with in relation to their size of their economy - a genuine surplus. Not sure there is a simpler way of sayig it. Although perhaps you can explain what happened to our oil money when Labour was in power on the 70s, late 90s and the last decade?What, use it to invest in public infrastructure and save it for a rainy day in a sovereign wealth fund?
Fairly sure it was used to pay for lower taxes to help keep Maggie in power!!
Evidence for the tax cut claim please? Not looked hard but company tax rates in Norway were lower than yhe UK in the Thatcher era.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-19871411
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-–-failure-invest-britain’s-future
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/10103345/We-wasted-North-Sea-oil-lets-not-do-the-same-with-shale-gas.html
Not the hard numbers but you get the idea
Bear in mind that utter mess that Thatcher inherited from Labour with corporate tax rates over 50% and top personal rates over 90% - the connection with the need for the UK to go to the IMF in the late 70's was no coincidence. It was pretty obvious that tax had to be less punitive to avoid the 'brain drain' and significant disincentive to invest in the UK in order to make progress. Not so much tax cuts to buy votes as tax cuts to encourage investment and enterprise and make the economy grow."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I read the post, it was just long, rambling and made no clear point. If you're going to be patronising when people critique your communication skills, then feel free not to post again
How about England in the industrial revolution, or the emergence of the USA as the worlds largest economy. And Germany post 1945 was starting from a ruined economy so of course it would grow quickly.
You're confusing value creation with the distribution of economic rents. Capitalism is A way of sharing proceeds, nothing more. The biggest jumps in value creation were in centrally managed economies, including the German industrial development post 1945 and Japans HUGE increase in productivity driven by the ministry of trade in the 1890s, which may well have been considered communist. Read more here: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/corporate-governance-and-sustainable-prosperity-william-lazonick/?isb=9780333777572Point 1 - problem is that socialism is reliant on capitalism to create the wealth to distribute, so socialism is a bit of a parasite in its relationship with capitalism. If we started with socialism there would be much less wealth to go round in the first place as Bompington says. And when you try to redistribute too much, you remove the incentives for that wealth to be created in the first place. Capitalism is what allows you to sit behind a keyboard in relative comfort and moan about....capitalism
And people clearly are sharing in that wealth in a largely capitalist society, otherwise we would not be sitting here with a Tory majority government 
.
As for your other post above, tbh it was too long and ramblingg to see what point you were trying to make. Althougg I did lose interest when you accused me of being stupid or untruthful. If I tell you things that dont fit in with your view, toughl. But at least try to reply clearly and concisely
Pity you din't want to read the post, its your loss as you would have learnt something.
Sometimes things are complex, if they are too complex for you, no worries.
Chandlers book "The Visible Hand" makes the point that the emergence of the US as a dominant economy was driven by two things, firstly a monopoly of the railways and telegraph, then secondly the centrally planned WWII manufacturing. The Industrial revolution, granted, I haven't studied in great detail but its hard to see it as a genuine capitalist event given there was little or no stock ownership. Can I perhaps apologize in advance if you aren't able to keep up, you're either unable to follow or, (I suspect) unwilling to as it doesnt fit in with your own paradigm. Not posting again as in either case its a waste of my time. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You didn't mention rent control - I did, and then explained the likely issues Honestly, do you bother reading these posts? :roll:private rents up 20% in the s/w this year alone, how high should they rise? would a 100% increase be enough or 200% ? after all the state will pick up the bill wont it?
Your assumption that a move to building more social housing will lead to mass homelessness is rubbish, makes no sense at all.
:roll: Read my post again mamba and reply to it, not what you want to reply to. I explained the impact of rent controls and private tenants right to buy on private housing availability. That's different from the impact of just providing social housing:
as i never mentioned rent control (in this context or indeed these recent threads).... and as you ve still not explained why social housing would lead to mass homelessness.... i ll take that as you ve realised you are talking rightyb0ll0x
what having no housing policy and ever increasing rents is doing, is making hard working people poorer and poorer, HB goes ever upwards, whilst people who are already well off, get to secure their pension pots and/or return on their savings (your words) and unlike rent support in SH, this money does not go back into the pot of inproving or increasing housing."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's also a free country and you can (at least for now) invest your money how you want.Many are simply trying to grt a decent return on their money or create a pension pot. Why penalise that? Sounds like politics of envy.
Penalise is an emotive word. Legislation is what governments are required to provide. The prevailing mindset of governments in recent years is that rising property values above normal inflation is necessary to keep well heeled voters on side.
Whilst it is hugely beneficial to many, it is completely artificial as it is fuelled by housing benefit. In the long term, it is causing huge social disparity. Legislation should be put in place to redress the imbalance.
As a society, we'd be much better off if property prices dropped and the market re-aligned itself. Houses won't be cheap as a result of any short term fix as there are supply issues. But simply owning a home is not a right to free savings growth. Unfortunately, that is how it is treated.
What legislation would you propose that would successfully override the law of supply and demand in the housing market?
Not suggesting people should morally abstain from investing in housing. Suggesting legsilation is required.
Legislation I'd suggest. Cap housing benefits is a start. The short term outcome would inevitably be increased homelessness if that was done in isolation so initially there would need to be rent caps.
Cease government support of spiralling house prices 'help to buy' etc.
And then we move into the bits you won't like. Punitive taxation on empty properties. Extremely punitive taxation on empty 2nd properties.
If there is an accepted shortfall of something that is accepted as a basic need, the needs of the many outweight the need for a free market. Ignoring the fact it's not a free market at present as it's artificially supported by public coffers. Why? To support the property owners 'must' have a return on their investment ideology.0 -
what having no housing policy and ever increasing rents is doing, is making hard working people poorer and poorer, HB goes ever upwards, whilst people who are already well off, get to secure their pension pots and/or return on their savings (your words) and unlike rent support in SH, this money does not go back into the pot of inproving or increasing housing.
You didn't mention rent control - I did, and then explained the likely issues Honestly, do you bother reading these posts? :roll:
what you need to try and do is answer the question..... which so far you ve failed utterly to do.
so, why is an obvious free marketeer like you, happy for the state to subsidise people who want to make money out of property, by renting it to people who cant afford the rent, so get HB (which is state subsidy), which in turn goes to the owner, which boosts his or her pension etc.
i also dont know why you bang on about rent control, a return to social housing would mean lower rents without rent control, as demand tailed off and folk moved into the state sector and/or bought property as buy to let owners decided to sell (and buyers no longer had to bid against cash buyers).... something you might support? it would also be done over several years, as you rightly say, we are not made of money.0 -
JCorbyn was smart today, in PMQs he asked questions direct from the public (got 40k ones) and stated he wanted a less drama based Q session in future, i thought he put Cameron on the back foot, which surprised me as i did think DC would eat him alive, of course DC might also be careful about being smug, un like some.........0
-
Away from the novelty of PMQs without shouting, councils have announced they're having to cut new homes built by 5,000 as a result of council tax cuts. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5bb28210-5b9f-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3lkMzCFXs
S'alright if you own a home - pretty sh!te if you don't.
Bottom line is that prices are so high because supply is so short.0 -
Notwithstanding the point that you haven't answered my questions, let me try to explain in simple terms
what having no housing policy and ever increasing rents is doing, is making hard working people poorer and poorer, HB goes ever upwards, whilst people who are already well off, get to secure their pension pots and/or return on their savings (your words) and unlike rent support in SH, this money does not go back into the pot of inproving or increasing housing.
You didn't mention rent control - I did, and then explained the likely issues Honestly, do you bother reading these posts? :roll:
what you need to try and do is answer the question..... which so far you ve failed utterly to do.
so, why is an obvious free marketeer like you, happy for the state to subsidise people who want to make money out of property, by renting it to people who cant afford the rent, so get HB (which is state subsidy), which in turn goes to the owner, which boosts his or her pension etc.
i also dont know why you bang on about rent control, a return to social housing would mean lower rents without rent control, as demand tailed off and folk moved into the state sector and/or bought property as buy to let owners decided to sell (and buyers no longer had to bid against cash buyers).... something you might support? it would also be done over several years, as you rightly say, we are not made of money.
For a start, just to be clear - there is a place for both state provided and privately provided rental housing. Clearly there are those in private rented who can afford market rents and those who cannot. We would hope that recipients of state provided housing are those who can't afford the market rate.
- The supply of state housing is pretty static in amount and can only change relatively slowly - overall and on a local basis.
- Private accommodation has a role to play in plugging the gap between the amount of state housing and the need for subsidised accommodation.
- Clearly the state has to pay the landlord for this whereas if it built and owned the properties it would not. - However where the state saves is not having to shell out the substantial capital cost of the land and the construction and instead pays the private landlord a return on their investment.
- The sums will ultimately revolve around whether it makes economic sense to make the capital outlay on land and building (and maintenance) or to pay a regular fee to someone who provides that for them.
- Ultimately we the taxpayer need to pay for the provision of that property one way or the other
- As mentioned above, there is tightrope to be walked in terms of getting the supply right. Unfortunately on a small island with a large and growing population there is no easy answer as the demand pressures will always be there and the supply side will always be tricky in heavily populated areas.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that if policies such as rent control and private tenant right to buy make landlords quit the rental market, the reduction in this supply will happen more quickly than housing can be built - hence the likely increase in homelessness and reduction in job mobility.
I still don't get the antipathy towards landlords, it is supply and demand that determines the price and they are no different from any other supplier of goods or services to the state in terms of making a return that any business exists to do.
And before you go on about right to buy, I don't see the issue, it doesn't change the overall demand or supply just the nature of the ownership. As people get more prosperous, do you not want to see them owning their own property?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And because demand is so high. Growing population etc.Away from the novelty of PMQs without shouting, councils have announced they're having to cut new homes built by 5,000 as a result of council tax cuts. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5bb28210-5b9f-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3lkMzCFXs
S'alright if you own a home - pretty sh!te if you don't.
Bottom line is that prices are so high because supply is so short."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
As well as trying to manage the net population change.Well yeah hence should be building more, not less.
Also the planned relaxation of the planning rules is definitely a step in the right direction on helping the supply side."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The approach was novel although could be seen as a bit of a cop out by asking other peoples questions rather than his own. The hard time for Corbyn will come when he has to put forward his own policies.JCorbyn was smart today, in PMQs he asked questions direct from the public (got 40k ones) and stated he wanted a less drama based Q session in future, i thought he put Cameron on the back foot, which surprised me as i did think DC would eat him alive, of course DC might also be careful about being smug, un like some........."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The question asked from 'Claire' who works part time with her old man on 25k complaining that the reduction in tax credits will cause their income to plummet obviously impacting on their FIVE kids was a belter. 0
-
I still don't get the antipathy towards landlords, it is supply and demand that determines the price and they are no different from any other supplier of goods or services to the state in terms of making a return that any business exists to do.
And before you go on about right to buy, I don't see the issue, it doesn't change the overall demand or supply just the nature of the ownership. As people get more prosperous, do you not want to see them owning their own property?
I dont have a problem with landlords and also thankyou for explaining your position, i dont agree with all of it but there again, i ve a feeling thats no surprise to you either!
Landlords and the private rental sector is essential, i just dont agree that private LL should have such a huge hold on social housing.
Right to buy.... it has its place (but not with HA) and as i said earlier, IF the money raised is used to build new housing stock, then fine but in moderation and in a time scale that allows replacement housing to be built.
Remember there should also be "right to buy" for people who are forced into rental who otherwise could afford to buy IF they were not being priced out of the market by BTL cash buyers.
We also need to build into the green belt...0 -
The question asked from 'Claire' who works part time with her old man on 25k complaining that the reduction in tax credits will cause their income to plummet obviously impacting on their FIVE kids was a belter.
well we dont know her circumtances do we? 2nd marriage? an ex husband who cant or wont pay for their kids? i dont know but reduction in TC is real issue for many low paid workers but at the end of the day Bally, the only people who are going to suffer are her kids and they had no say in her behavior.
Dont get me wrong, i get really pee'd off at amoral families behaving so iresponsibly but many women are left hold the baby..so to speak... whilst their partners dissappear to do it all again.0 -
The question asked from 'Claire' who works part time with her old man on 25k complaining that the reduction in tax credits will cause their income to plummet obviously impacting on their FIVE kids was a belter.
well we dont know her circumtances do we? 2nd marriage? an ex husband who cant or wont pay for their kids? i dont know but reduction in TC is real issue for many low paid workers but at the end of the day Bally, the only people who are going to suffer are her kids and they had no say in her behavior.
Dont get me wrong, i get really pee'd off at amoral families behaving so iresponsibly but many women are left hold the baby..so to speak... whilst their partners dissappear to do it all again.
You are right, we don't know her circumstances.She could always be a friend of one of the people Miliband spoke to in Hampstead before the Labour conference last year.
The point is, Labour has to appeal to the middle ground voter and asking questions purporting to be from a couple on circa 30k with 5 kids complaining that their benefits are going to plummet ain't gonna do it.0 -
We have only one kid but a lot less.coming in than "Claire" without tax credits. Not got a problem with her losing her TC. Not sure I believe that she should be getting those benefits somehow.
There's a family I know of through work colleagues who has a very large family, one income and take great pride in never having claimed benefits other than the child benefit which is not a lot. You see other large families on those awful documentaries where the film makers look down on the subjects claiming everything possible. Who never work for anything. I know which family I find their attitude to life I respect, the family who works for everything in case you had trouble guessing.
I only say this because I believe strongly that the state support system should only be there if you cannot support yourself. I do not believe that people should claim a benefit if they can get by without it. Self reliance I guess but it's only a few generations ago that we had no choice but be self reliant. The alternative was the horrendous work house. My Gran is probably among the dying few who grew up with the dread of having to go go into the workhouse. Long after that awful system ended she still had that fear. We have never had that in my generation. A good thing but it has meant less fear of relying on the state and perhaps even leading to those who see the state as their employer. Right wing view but one I hold strongly. I also live it. I had all the forms to claim tax and family credits but never filled my part in. We met the criteria to get it but we were managing so I felt we did not need it. Since then things have eased for us not least because my rate of pay has increased due to favourable business conditions for my employer and the raising of the tax allowance. It was tight at one point.
So when you say this Tory party does not represent people like me I say they've done good and bad but for me they've been good. I'm probably someone you'd think would benefit from socialism but I'm opposed to benefits as a right only believing in them as a need of last resort. That means Labour's benefits do not work for me. If my employer has a good climate to do business they feed it down to their employees. Guess I'm lucky with their approach so perhaps nearly unique situation I'm in.0 -
This also goes back to my point that Corbyn is concentrating his attention on a small percentage of the population at the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale who are already highly likely to vote Labour anyway. I can't see how he will win over any significant percentage of Tory voters or even retain the all of Blairite Labour vote."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
If he's likely to want a benefit culture with taxation of those they ideologically oppose then I'm not going to support them. I want a centrist party with balance to their policies. I find lurches to the left or to the right to put me right off a party. Both Labour and Tory need to watch their outer fringes, checking their excesses IMHO. For that matter if half the stuff about the new shadow chancellor are right then I'm not sure I think he's.even fit.for political high office or even fit for parliament. One to watch I reckon. I also find redwood in the Tory party to be dodgy.0
-
Re antipathy towards landlords, it basically boils down to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Essentially seeking rent for non-wealth creating assets creates a misallocation of resources.
That's tolerable when the rent is small. When rents collectively become very high, so does the misallocation.
This is ultimately why housing is so important. We all need it and we all pay for it, so it makes sense to have it effective and efficient.0 -
Antipathy towards landlords boils down to the fact that in very large parts of the country, housing is basically like being offered nothing to eat except McDonald's, Burger King and KFC and then being told you have to pay £40 for it.0
-
Or UKIP.This also goes back to my point that Corbyn is concentrating his attention on a small percentage of the population at the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale who are already highly likely to vote Labour anyway.
Wouldn't underestimate the size of the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale either!0 -
Even Comrade Ambrose at the Torygraph is now saying that Corbyn's "People's QE" plans are worth considering. The revolution's started.0
-
We are, aren't we? Plans are fairly advanced for mass building programmes in quite a few areas. In a few years, south Hampshire will have pretty much covered all the green bits. Apart from the "nice" areas where Tory councillors live.Well yeah hence should be building more, not less.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
UKIP actually do better amongst skilled manual workers than Ds and Es so if Corbyn could win back UKIP voters he'd be appealing to quite a wide range of the social spectrum. Problem for him will be his belief in a much more open door immigration policy is unlikely to do that - if anything he'll drive more voters into the arms of UKIP unless he can actually change minds about the costs/benefits of immigration - although a media onslaught in favour of staying in the EU might help him with that.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19704890#p19704890]BelgianBeerGeek[/url] wrote:
We are, aren't we? Plans are fairly advanced for mass building programmes in quite a few areas. In a few years, south Hampshire will have pretty much covered all the green bits. Apart from the "nice" areas where Tory councillors live.Well yeah hence should be building more, not less.
UK house building rates are near post war lows (which was 2012-13)
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30776306The country is facing up to a housebuilding crisis. A decade ago, the Barker Review of Housing Supply noted that about 250,000 homes needed to be built every year to prevent spiralling house prices and a shortage of affordable homes.
That target has been consistently missed - the closest the UK got was in 2006-07 when 219,000 homes were built. In 2012-13, the UK hit a post-war low of 135,500 homes, much of which was due to the financial crisis. Last year the figure recovered slightly to 141,000 homes.0
