billfunk

Only 2014. That is wonderful news.

Natural resources?

You seem not to have accounted for stress and "agro".

Easy to hate.

I am more disturbed by the garden. They have dug a border around the whole lawn meaning you have to jump from the patio onto the lawn. Weird. No doubt they are paedophile-rapist-murderers and have buried children under there. Hanging is too good for them. I want them cannoned.

And it puts something else in between me and the thing I want to invest in. I would be happy to invest in a mining stock if I thought it added value - if I thought it would outperform the relevent commodity/ies. Intuitively, investing in stocks as a proxy to commodity investing feels wrong to me. There is the added risk that a company may go bust or crash even though the underlying commodity is strong. In terms of a portfolio type ETF I would be put off by the high(ish) management costs. I am against high management costs in principle given that the funds are obliged to report which stocks they are investing in and I can just as easily invest in their "choice" shares. Since I am investing only peanuts I can play the intelligent sheep and hopefully make reasonable returns. This is mainly intuitive thought however, Happy to be proven completely wrong...

Land ownership is the default position for landed gentry and wealthy folk. They would be daft to give any of that up without being forced to by government. An imaginative capitalist could generate a great profit without the need for much land at all. The only question is how much you wish to punish the others - labour - for having neither the birthright or the imagination.

I agree with you. The unfortunate fact is many of these corporations make their money by paying staff as little as possible with the profit going to fund stockholders through dividends. Even so, I don't believe the government should interfere with labour. Interfere with the land monopolies first then if there is still an issue with labour attack capital.

Land dominates capital dominates labour. Equalise land, be neutral on capital and defend labour. £20,000 starter homes, significantly less employment law, low wage workers on £4 per hour.

I can't understand how this is consistent with the large volume of employers who pay staff within 1% of NMW year in year out. Is it that the low pay council are suberbly good at setting the rate or is it that most NMW corporations are desperate to pay their staff as little as possible? NMW corporations would love to pay staff significantly less than NMW, particularly at the lower end of the jobs market.

No, not a new minimum. No minimum.

Reasonable idea. In reality this would favour those who had already paid for their house in full. Has happened to me on several occasions - older people being able to undercut me vis a vis wages because they has next to no housing costs. This said, I would like a citizens' wage and a fairly naked free market. The NMW is an attack on the poor.

He is being sarcastic.

Maybe if they bothered to do a bit more archeology they wouldn't be starving now, would they? Give a man fish and he will feed himself for a day. Give a man a geo-phys scanner and he can provide for himself and his family for the rest of his life. Because they don't want to live off handouts they just want the opportunity to find wooden postholes of their own.

I agree with you. Politicians are too scared to terrorise grannies or evict anyone from their "home". Telling someone to get a cheaper car is a lot less emotive.