Macroeconomics, the economy, inflation etc. *likely to be very dull*
Comments
-
I think you are agreeing with me. There are of course more recent examples but thought the Docklands would be appropriatesurrey_commuter said:
Docklands was 40 years ago and arguably both of your examples are them choosing not to do something.rjsterry said:
They don't need to pick winners. They don't offer tax breaks to the film industry on a production by production basis. Some of those films will have lost money. Similarly they did manage to regenerate the Docklands and other areas without picking winners. I don't think it matters if not every renewables startup makes it.surrey_commuter said:
Can you share some “shovel ready” examplesJezyboy said:Lots of moonshot type green/low carbon initiatives and research that could be sold to the rest of the world would seem a potential start to me.
Probably looking for paying for it by borrowing. But perhaps it could be a meaningful way of making sure that when you went outside the m25 there were more jobs than just working in distribution centres.
I do not believe the Govt is better at picking winners than the market
I am not a purist but do think the Govt’s best hope of improving thing is to stop doing stuff.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Specifically on carbon capture, the government plans to do it in 2030s. At the moment, the emphasis is on reducing carbon emissions which is done by the carbon market. The thinking is that carbon capture is too expensive at the moment.surrey_commuter said:
I often think that the easiest thing for UK to do is copy ideas from abroad that have been test driven. The other side of that coin is to ask why nobody else has done your new idea.TheBigBean said:
There are probably some that believe in free markets more than you, but not many, so I'd say your purity rating is pretty high.surrey_commuter said:
Docklands was 40 years ago and arguably both of your examples are them choosing not to do something.
I am not a purist but do think the Govt’s best hope of improving thing is to stop doing stuff.
By way of example based on the posts above, the government could propose a tariff it will pay per tonne of carbon captured. The free market can then work out the best way to make money from that proposal.
Unfortunately, most of the ideas put forward by the private sector are all about patenting something with the hope of making billions one day.
Knowing nothing aboutthe subject do you know why nobody else has adopted it.
None of these ideas will alleviate the current recession/cost of living crisis
The UK is a world leader in offshore wind which was delivered through a similar mechanism. Other countries have failed on that front.0 -
That'll be the Chinese model.surrey_commuter said:
I often think that the easiest thing for UK to do is copy ideas from abroad that have been test driven.
They will beat us every day due toslave labourreduced costs.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
We are due to move back to London in September and it feels weird that I may never come back here.rjsterry said:
I think you are agreeing with me. There are of course more recent examples but thought the Docklands would be appropriatesurrey_commuter said:
Docklands was 40 years ago and arguably both of your examples are them choosing not to do something.rjsterry said:
They don't need to pick winners. They don't offer tax breaks to the film industry on a production by production basis. Some of those films will have lost money. Similarly they did manage to regenerate the Docklands and other areas without picking winners. I don't think it matters if not every renewables startup makes it.surrey_commuter said:
Can you share some “shovel ready” examplesJezyboy said:Lots of moonshot type green/low carbon initiatives and research that could be sold to the rest of the world would seem a potential start to me.
Probably looking for paying for it by borrowing. But perhaps it could be a meaningful way of making sure that when you went outside the m25 there were more jobs than just working in distribution centres.
I do not believe the Govt is better at picking winners than the market
I am not a purist but do think the Govt’s best hope of improving thing is to stop doing stuff.
Silicon Roundabout is a good recent example which I reckon was coupled with an unofficial tax break for tech firms0 -
Some of the charts in this thread…
0 -
Are any of those charts shocking?rick_chasey said:Some of the charts in this thread…
"Landlords were more likely to increase rent for new tenancies than renewed tenancies" Yeah no 5h1t.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
The proportion of rental properties being run by a) amateurs and b) for the purpose of a pension is eye watering.pangolin said:
Are any of those charts shocking?rick_chasey said:Some of the charts in this thread…
"Landlords were more likely to increase rent for new tenancies than renewed tenancies" Yeah no 5h1t.0 -
Why is it eye watering?rick_chasey said:
The proportion of rental properties being run by a) amateurs and b) for the purpose of a pension is eye watering.pangolin said:
Are any of those charts shocking?rick_chasey said:Some of the charts in this thread…
"Landlords were more likely to increase rent for new tenancies than renewed tenancies" Yeah no 5h1t.0 -
Wouldn't it be odd not to acknowledge that owning properties will benefit you in retirement?rick_chasey said:
The proportion of rental properties being run by a) amateurs and b) for the purpose of a pension is eye watering.pangolin said:
Are any of those charts shocking?rick_chasey said:Some of the charts in this thread…
"Landlords were more likely to increase rent for new tenancies than renewed tenancies" Yeah no 5h1t.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I am surprised by your level of surprise.rick_chasey said:
The proportion of rental properties being run by a) amateurs and b) for the purpose of a pension is eye watering.pangolin said:
Are any of those charts shocking?rick_chasey said:Some of the charts in this thread…
"Landlords were more likely to increase rent for new tenancies than renewed tenancies" Yeah no 5h1t.
Buy to let as a pension fund strategy is decades old.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Honestly?rick_chasey said:
The proportion of rental properties being run by a) amateurs and b) for the purpose of a pension is eye watering.pangolin said:
Are any of those charts shocking?rick_chasey said:Some of the charts in this thread…
"Landlords were more likely to increase rent for new tenancies than renewed tenancies" Yeah no 5h1t.
Much rather rent from a landlord that had a single/small handful of properties that was viewing them as a longterm investment than a slum lord with masses of cheap properties they didn't care about.
The worst property I've rented was from a full time "pro" landlord, it was fine during the summer, but I didn't fancy renting somewhere in winter where you could fit your hand in the gap between the window frame and the wall...
0 -
The other option is to have largish companies renting out properties. In some countries it can be common for a company to own a whole building and let out all the flats. This potentially makes it easier to manage for both the landlord and the tenant.Jezyboy said:
Honestly?rick_chasey said:
The proportion of rental properties being run by a) amateurs and b) for the purpose of a pension is eye watering.pangolin said:
Are any of those charts shocking?rick_chasey said:Some of the charts in this thread…
"Landlords were more likely to increase rent for new tenancies than renewed tenancies" Yeah no 5h1t.
Much rather rent from a landlord that had a single/small handful of properties that was viewing them as a longterm investment than a slum lord with masses of cheap properties they didn't care about.
The worst property I've rented was from a full time "pro" landlord, it was fine during the summer, but I didn't fancy renting somewhere in winter where you could fit your hand in the gap between the window frame and the wall...
The issue is that yields are really bad, so all new builds are sold as it is far profitable to do that.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T59EDTqqW0A
I know they don't really have a choice, and it's a good thing to do. That's another 15 billion on top of the 500,000,000,000 quid, plus less tax revenue from various streams.0 -
Oh, and here's the historic interest rate chart.0 -
It’s the mother of all wealth transfers, in the lead productive way possible. Rentier capitalism for the sole purpose of keeping the young out of the housing system to pay for their own retirement. F@ck me.
Utterly unproductive at best.
0 -
-
you don't see it as providing a much needed service whilst providing diversity in their investment portfolio?rick_chasey said:It’s the mother of all wealth transfers, in the lead productive way possible. Rentier capitalism for the sole purpose of keeping the young out of the housing system to pay for their own retirement. F@ck me.
Utterly unproductive at best.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
you don't see it as providing a much needed service whilst providing diversity in their investment portfolio?rick_chasey said:It’s the mother of all wealth transfers, in the lead productive way possible. Rentier capitalism for the sole purpose of keeping the young out of the housing system to pay for their own retirement. F@ck me.
Utterly unproductive at best.
It does rather seem to entrench the inequality, by yet another reason why property is unaffordable for young people. Given that the rental market is much greater proportion on the Continent, I wonder how that business model works, if it's not treating housing as a major income stream for wealthy investors.0 -
Plenty of 'buy to leters' aren't wealthy. They would just rather invest in something tangible that they have an understanding of.
Suggesting private landlords renting is "for the sole purpose of keeping the young out of the housing system" is a very warped view of someone who is massively ageist and has a chip on their shoulder bigger than the shard.1 -
It is a service, because no corporate would accept the yields on offer. Or maybe that means they are part of a broken system supporting unsustainable house prices.surrey_commuter said:
you don't see it as providing a much needed service whilst providing diversity in their investment portfolio?rick_chasey said:It’s the mother of all wealth transfers, in the lead productive way possible. Rentier capitalism for the sole purpose of keeping the young out of the housing system to pay for their own retirement. F@ck me.
Utterly unproductive at best.0 -
Really don’t tbh. What is the service? Owning something you need but can’t afford to buy?surrey_commuter said:
you don't see it as providing a much needed service whilst providing diversity in their investment portfolio?rick_chasey said:It’s the mother of all wealth transfers, in the lead productive way possible. Rentier capitalism for the sole purpose of keeping the young out of the housing system to pay for their own retirement. F@ck me.
Utterly unproductive at best.
There’s a good reason rentier capitialism is a derogatory description.0 -
Think about the incentives and come back to me.Dorset_Boy said:Plenty of 'buy to leters' aren't wealthy. They would just rather invest in something tangible that they have an understanding of.
Suggesting private landlords renting is "for the sole purpose of keeping the young out of the housing system" is a very warped view of someone who is massively ageist and has a chip on their shoulder bigger than the shard.
That may not be the reason for doing it but that system creates all the incentives to do so0 -
I would agree the previous incentives (a market distortion) were wrong but my understanding is that most of them have been removed.rick_chasey said:
Think about the incentives and come back to me.Dorset_Boy said:Plenty of 'buy to leters' aren't wealthy. They would just rather invest in something tangible that they have an understanding of.
Suggesting private landlords renting is "for the sole purpose of keeping the young out of the housing system" is a very warped view of someone who is massively ageist and has a chip on their shoulder bigger than the shard.
That may not be the reason for doing it but that system creates all the incentives to do so0 -
Given there's been well over 10 years of effort to make work pay, it seems strange that the people still seemingly get caught in traps where taking more work is not financially worth while.0
-
-
People in the 50-64 year old bracket may retire early, who knew?
Phht.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Right. There’s a lot of talk in the telegraph and some MPs that it is the welfare system - specifically UC - that is creating a workshy workforce, hence the massive job vacancy issue currently.pblakeney said:People in the 50-64 year old bracket may retire early, who knew?
Phht.
The point of the thread above is to look at what is actually causing the labour shortage. Plainly it is not UC.
Sure it’s “obvious” - everyone whinges that everyone’s talking out their @rse so I figured the data was worth sharing?
Basically people retiring early and people going to uni/school and a lack of replacements.0 -
Basically the the statistics are bollocks based on the assumption that everyone should be working and paying taxes.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t-gK-9EIq4
