Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

LJAR

Members
  • Content Count

    1,131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LJAR

  1. A Large part of it is that the productivity of the public sector is measured by their pay levels, and those have not been increasing for a while.
  2. spot on, we should let people see lots of different things and help them choose what works for them.
  3. Well, a pretty big difference was that cutting expenditure in 1945 was pretty easy as a sizable war had just ended and the troops were sent home. Your comment about the 1% seems to have roots in the "fixed pie" fallacy of the economy and the idea that the 1% are a fixed unchanging group of people at the top, they aren't the people in the 1% change every year, in fact people's income changes throughout their life. People tend to hit the 1% when they sell up their business that they have worked for a lifetime to build, when they get lucky on a stock investment or sell their house and downsize
  4. hmm, their economic growth is based on very massaged GDP numbers due to massive state sponsored spending on infrastructure projects that have little real value, so economically they will slow down. Remember when Russia and then Japan were "about to overtake the US"? Socially they are going to have very big problems once people get rich enough to really start caring about corruption, lack of a democratic voice, etc. That could be a trigger for war, but realistically they don't have the domestic economy to be able to fight a big war they would end up against the US, UK, Canada, South Korea, J
  5. that is mainly because firing people is so hard it makes sense to invest in capital machinery instead of hiring more people to increase output.
  6. spot on. Or the fact that it is perfectly legitimate, and no abusive to claim benefits for a "disability" that does not prevent you from working or have any impact on your earning potential.
  7. there were many in the roosevelt administration that would disagree with you, and in fact if you look at the private part of the US economy, it didnt start growing until 1949ish when the public spending taps were turned off and people were allowed to invest without restrictions again. true enough - japan hasn't been as much of a disaster as the press they get but for they are an example of how to dig yourself into a really deep hole. I would argue that it hasn't competely played out yet that one. On the other hand they certainly are not growing like they used to. greece and spain etc are
  8. the joke is on you if you think that capitalism has produced rather than reduced inequalities...... people used to starve regularly in the UK each year many used to be actual or little more than slaves tied to the land nobody used to retire except the idle rich many didn't have houses, let alone ones with double glazing and central heating. Free market capitalism has leveled people like no other force in human history, and it continues to do the same thing on a global scale today. The countervailing force has always been concentrations of power in the governments and rent seekers that the
  9. LJAR

    Democracy?

    will help explain.basically a "democracy" is rule of the mob and eventually devolves into an oligarchic type of government. (the elite at the top of the pile have all the positions of power in all the parties and they run the country for their benefit and that of their friends) the only alternative is a legally restricted government that isn't allowed to do very much, but that requires a population in constant vigilance, and may actually be impossible to sustain for more that 100-150 years or so (at least it hasn't lasted longer that that before) Not sure where to go in the world to escape t
  10. LJAR

    Tony Benn - Why?

    Many are I wouldn't go so far as to say all. (you could consider Benn to be one since he hasn't voluntarily given away his fortune in order to decrease inequality in this country) But there are not many who think that they wont be the ones "in charge" when we are all "equal" - in essence it boils down to wanting to arrange people to suit their own desires, not to arrange people so that those same people are as well off as they can be. either that or they seem to want to punish people for being lucky, or talented, or hardworking. I fail to see the benefit that comes of this. If all they w
  11. Nope - there is case law in the US stating that sales tax is not due on items sold over the internet in different states. if you sell over the internet in the same state, then tax is due. Otherwise, no. @ durhamborn - spot on.
  12. you clearly plan to alter the population from human beings then?
  13. how about build more houses so the locals can live there too? it all comes down to market restrictions in the end.
  14. this is true, but the first move is helping people realise the extent to which government interferes in the price of housing in this country. they make the land more expensive (planning laws) , the building more expensive (climate change taxes), lower the quality of the build (high density requirements). they then push the price further by offering cheap money, subsidised rents for landlords, etc the list goes on and each piece has its own justification and lobby group determined to protect it.
  15. your own sig is a pretty good response to that statement.
  16. Unemployment benefits are actually a pretty small part of the benefits pie. we should be cutting the benefits that go to higher earners (above min wage) and child benefits to families who dont need them etc. then start cutting the cost of living, shale gas (long term I know but get going already), lower VAT, lower fuel duty, liberalised planning laws to lower house prices and rents. then get the economy moving again, getting rid of entire bills and types of regulations not just tinkering. (leaving the EU would help here, but fat chance) then lower taxes on employment, make the personal all
  17. that sort of growth could happen again, but not before a big recession to clear out the deadwood. the sort of innovation we used to see has been choked by reams of red tape only in the relatively unregulated tech sector is innovation still running at full tilt. expensive energy, housing, too may people getting into debt for uni - these are all caused by regulatory or tax distortions of the market. uni should be expensive and not subsidised, shale gas could make energy even cheaper than it used to be, reduce planning restrictions and housing would become cheap again as well. the answers ar
  18. well historically speaking this hasn't been so, competition has destroyed monoplies when they try to be abusive, this happened recently with china and rare earths. they tried to raise prices and provoked such a big competitive reaction that prices actually fell on world markets. the LIBOR situation exists because of regulations dictating how lending must be done, not in spite of it. airlines are similarly protected from competition by the difficulty in starting up a new airline or in building new airports. they are still not an abusive monopoly though, dominance I dont care about, I only g
  19. It would be correct to say the 2008 figure is largely labour - they had been in power for 2 terms by that point. however saying 2010 and 2011 are also labour isn't stretching the point too much, in the same way that saying the situation in 2001 was a tory credit - given that GB followed their spending plans for 3 years before increasing it again. applying the 3 years would mean that the coalition cant have a reasonable affect on the trajectory until about 2013, so up to that point would be reasonable-ish to allocate to labour. They are both big government thieves who think they should get
  20. temporary dominance will always occur, the point is whether it is a problem and if we need to worry about it. I think the answer is no. another eg (ebay competes with craigslist, gumtree etc as other 2nd hand sites as well as a plethora of online forums where things are auctioned off and posted for sale.) (on IE firefox was breaking the dominance before the competition rulings came in) I dont know the facts about hong kong or JP morgan, but would be interested in finding out more. As for standard oil, that is pretty interesting. at its peak SO had over 90% market share but had declined t
  21. none of those things quoted are monopolies, we already have had several generations of replacement and redundancy. for example, yahoo was entrenched until they weren't because google, now bing is starting to compete, along with many others myspace was entrenched until facebook and now google+ (and facebook is resolutely failing to make any money) Amazon is entrenched apart from all the other online independent stores and mixed models with bricks and mortar plus the big supermarkets getting into the online game. youtube exists but so do lots of other video sharing sites Internet explorer
  22. you know fascism is a left wing doctrine right? what with all the central control and de facto state/political friends ownership of the means of production and the colossal screwing over of the workers. anyway, anyone with an ISA or a pension or a trust fund, or taking dividends from their own business or being paid in cash or or etc is a tax avoider. they are mechanisms specifically set up in legislation to encourage certain behaviors through the grant of special tax free status. be suitably ashamed of yourselves.
  23. no he is not right through dint of simple observation. the present oligopoly (in banking or supermarkets for eg )is the result of regulations imposed on the market that restrict the setting up of new enterprises and thereby limit the "natural order" of competition and innovation. the "natural order" of laissez faire is for a multitude of different competing firms to exist with new entrants constantly appearing and old entities going bust. I am not clear on the meaning of revolution in this context, but if he means constant changing of those at the top, well yes that is the point. edit - I
  24. +1 "evisceration of the welfare state" - if we went back to 2005 level of spending we would be in surplus. I dont remember there being a crisis of the welfare state at that point.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.