tallguy

As long as the dumpster can be located sufficiently far away from any individual house, I think it's a good idea as long as it gets emptied frequently enough. Obviously, because of high density living conditions, this idea would not be applicable everywhere. There is of course, though, the deeper issue of employment. That is to say, half of the bleeding country are employed by the state, either directly or indirectly. That being the case, reducing the number of people required to do things like clear the bins only means that there is more to pay out in terms of housuing benefit/unemployment benefit. Now, one may argue that the private sector will take up the slack. Well, without wholesale reform of things like land and property rights and without a complete collapse in asset prices such that production costs fall enough to make it worthwhile producing again, that just aint gonna happen. Why? Because the very people who benefit from land and property rights as they stand and the very people who benefit from inflated asset prices as they stand are the very same people who are running the show right now.

Governments decide to loosen monetary policy for a variety of political and economic reasons. Central banks implement that policy Commercial banks join the party Any commercial banks that don't take the cheap money are penalised by their shareholders as they become out-competed by the competition. Thus, all commercial banks are dragged to the party whether they like it or not. All of this new money filters down to the domestic lenders. They are under the same competitive pressures as the commercial banks. Thus, they force this new money down the throats of Joe Public. Largely on the back of increased mortgage credit. This, in turn, results in too much credit chasing a housing market that has not increased by the same amount. This can have only one effect. House prices rise to meet the increased supply of credit. Similar housing bubbles (and bubbles in other asset classes), all born on a similar process of fiscal loosening, are repeated all over the Western World. Any individual Joe Public that doesn't take the cheap money on offer is economically penalised as his neighbours (who do take the money) see the asset value of their house go through the roof. Thus, Joe Public is also dragged to the party whether he likes it or not. Oil hits 150 dollars per barrel, partly as a result of the monetary loosening and partly as a result of real supply constraints relative to real global demand. In turn, sending the cost of living and production costs ( due to both of these factors) through the roof. People can no longer service debts that were already at unsustainable levels anyway. Joe Public begins to default. The banking system starts to collapse. Of course, it's all a whole lot worse than the schematic above because a lot of the money comes from other countries' banking systems. Indeed, country's like Germany, who are otherwise lauded as paragons of fiscal virtue in all of this mess, are nothing of the sort. They simply exported their inflated money abroad to countries like Greece et al where all of the predictable asset bubbles ensued. At this point it's possible for things to go one of two ways: 1) The banking system is allowed to collapse. People lose their savings. Austerity organically kicks in with a vengeance. The f*ckwits at the top lose their shirts along with everyone else. Or 2) Taking Greece's current difficulties as a working example, the banking system is bailed out by the state (in this case, the wider EU state), the losses are passed onto the taxpayer via increased taxes and a massive, orchestrated austerity drive in terms of public services and the selling off of public assets. This time, however, the f*ckwits at the top do not lose their shirts along with everyone else. Instead, they come out of it more or less unscathed at least in terms of their relative position in the order of things. Now it seems to me that the Greek people, in refusing scenario (2), have just about got it right. Either way they are going to become vastly poorer. However, scenario (2) has two distinct advantages for them. Firstly, they can take comfort in the fact that the political/economic elites who orchestrated this mess will get f*cked over as well. Secondly, at least they will be poor on their own sovereign terms as opposed to being poor and losing complete control of their own country. Let the world burn and we'll see who's still standing at the end of it.

Yep, and they don't contribute anything to wealth. They merely redistribute existing wealth at best and redirect some of it out of the uk to non uk owners at worst.

resource depletion. In particular, the most critical resource of all; energy.

Good post

We are a deeply moral species when it comes to equity and fairness. It's a fundamental facet of our social nature.

Money is subject to the price signal mechanism. Both in terms of it';s exchange value with other currencies., bit, also with regard to other goods/services. If the supply of money is held constant but the supply of the things it is exhanged for change, the the exchange value (price signal) of money will also change to reflect this. The reverse is also obviously true. Funadamentally, money is supect to the same laws of supply and demand as anything esle. As such, it is subect to the same price signals that arise from changes in supply and demand.

Straight off, money can have a price signal, as indicated by it exchange value with other currencies

They may or may not be creating a bigger bust. For the record, I think that they are. However, as long as that bust can be protracted over a decade or two, that may well be their only goal. If so, then it's going pretty much according to plan so far don't you think?

I take it, Bruce, from the conspicuous absence of an actual reply to my repeated question, that you do indeed now accept that the vast majority of tenants in the UK are on assured shorthold tenancies of typically 6 month's duration and that they are in a poor market position to negotiate the length of their tenancies due in large part to the 97 act which made such assured shorthold tenancies the default. Oh well, I'm glad we've settled that.

Well, thank you so much for the compliment Bruce. This Steve Cook sound like a capital chap and I am grateful for the comparison. Back on topic Bruce, do you now accept that the vast majority of tenants are on assured shorthold tenancies of typically 6 month's duration and that they are in a poor market position to negotiate the length of their tenances due in large part to the 97 act which made such assured shorthold tenancies the default?

I'm afraid your biscuit reference is lost on me Bruce. Perhaps you might care to address the points in my post?

Why are you so evasive which, given that you are on a discussion forum, I take as highly rude? Do you or do you not accept that the large majority of domestic tenancies in the UK at the moment are assured shorthold ones of typically 6 month's duration and that, following the 97 act, it is very difficult for the majority tenants to negotiate otherwise? If you do, then do you further accept that this represent a significant lack of security for the vast majority of tentants? If you do not accept the above, on what basis do you not accept it? Let me help you here. Telling us all how clever you were in negotiationg your own tenancy does not constitute an adequate basis......

You are a silly boy Bruce. My tenancy is for 2 years paid up-front at a significant discount. However, unlike your good self, I am intelligent enough to realize that my personal anecdotal example is statistically irrelevant. Address the points.

No, I'm saying that the vast majority of tenants, following the 97 act, are not in a market position to be able to negotiate the length of the tenancy. Furthermore, as more and more FTBs are priced out of the market, the supply/demand ratio with regards to rental property is becoming such that their bargaining position in terms of rental period is even further undermined. You're not very good at addressing the actual points are you?