Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ken_ichikawa

Broken Window Fallacy

Recommended Posts

Nice link! ass jobs :lol:

There was a fall off 220,000 fewer cars on UK roads between 2008 and 2009 and probably continuing to fall They could have put that in with their excuses of careful driving and whatnot for falling demand.

There were 31,035,791 cars on the road over the course of 2009, a fall of 0.7 per cent compared with 2008 when there were 31,252,476, according to figures obtained by the Society of Motoring Manufacturers (SMMT)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytime I've asked Autoglass for a quote, it has been 4 times the cost of the cheapest competitor.

I would guess that Autoglass do a lot of insurace jobs and the insurance companies tend to go with one big company for routine stuff like windscreens and Autoglass didn't care about the cost to customers because few of them were paying directly out of their own pockets. I think that insurance companies are tightening the screws on suppliers and it's having a knock-on effect.

That, and Autoglass was probably owned by a private equity group carrying out a pump [ed. and dump] or an asset-strip.

We could possibly see a bunch of new local windscreen companies using former Autoglass workers and 2nd hand Autoglass kit. So it's not all bad news.

Edited by Diver Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auto Windscreens went bust earlier in the year. I guess it souldn't be a surprise Auto Glass are also suffering. Though with the competitor gone you might think things would look better for them.

They have big insurance deals. Which is high volume lower cost.

One of the electrical companies, maybe Euronics, tried the same game. Though they ended up losing because when all you have is price your company is doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a fall off 220,000 fewer cars on UK roads between 2008 and 2009 and probably continuing to fall They could have put that in with their excuses of careful driving and whatnot for falling demand.

Society of Motoring Manufacturers (SMMT)

And how much petrol is sold per year?

I think the roads are busier than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how much petrol is sold per year?

I think the roads are busier than ever.

To get one of the free spaces in the multistory next to work i used to have to be there before 8.35 on the dot, very precise or i'd go all the way up and all the way down again, you could set your watch by it. In the last year it has gone to 8.50 and there are still plenty of spaces despite the nearby paid parking almost doubling in price in the last year and those carparks being about 1/4 occupied ever since. Also a regular bottleneck on the way to work which used to be very consistent has dropped off to very occasional and i just drive straight through.

Edited by athom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how much petrol is sold per year?

I think the roads are busier than ever.

I am guessing you are in the south then.Last week I drove from Newcastle to Norwich.just over 4 hours without going over 70,and this on a Friday.The traffic is hugely diminished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how much petrol is sold per year?

I think the roads are busier than ever.

I am back in the Uk every 3 months (London & Cambridge area) and have noticed less traffic travelling at slower speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And more at higher speeds?

Not the clearest statement was it

I've been waiting for people to join me at 65mph on my fairly regular M4 trips but i'm just starting to notice a few others watching the MPG instead of the MPH, still nearly everyone going 80mph. Very surprising really when you consider the fuel price and the difference in economy for just another 10mph. I think it's just a hard habit to break though not an indication of consumer confidence.

Edited by athom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can avoid auto-windscreen angst by riding a motorcycle, Ken! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffic is getting worse all the time down here in west Cornwall. 11am rainy Tuesday in March, as much traffic as there was in the Summer 10 years ago. However, the demographic is quite telling

What is telling about the demographic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No strikes ? No sense of entitlement ? No blaming the bankers ? No gripes about pensions ?

Oh yes, this is the real world.

And the really good news is that it's your taxes that will be supporting these newly unemployed people because- of course- a private company has the total right to externalise completely the costs involved in feeding, housing and even retraining the people it discards.

Maybe if a small percentage of these social costs were imposed on the companies doing the discarding there would less excessive profit taking at the top, and a bit more 'social responsibility'.

Funny how the private sector has no hesitation in dumping people on the state, feels no obligation to help deal with the problems thus created and then proceed to bleat incessantly on the subject of state interference in their affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the really good news is that it's your taxes that will be supporting these newly unemployed people because- of course- a private company has the total right to externalise completely the costs involved in feeding, housing and even retraining the people it discards.

Maybe if a small percentage of these social costs were imposed on the companies doing the discarding there would less excessive profit taking at the top, and a bit more 'social responsibility'.

Funny how the private sector has no hesitation in dumping people on the state, feels no obligation to help deal with the problems thus created and then proceed to bleat incessantly on the subject of state interference in their affairs.

If the workers previously weren't forced by the state to pay huge sums in tax and had their costs increased massively for houses by strict planning permission then they'd probably have a lot more money left than the pittance they'll get from Jobseekers Allowance.

Mind you if the businesses they worked for weren't hamstrung by massive government regulation and business rates then perhaps they wouldn't need to sack them in the first place.

But of course the answer is to impose yet more costs on the tax payers and businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the workers previously weren't forced by the state to pay huge sums in tax and had their costs increased massively for houses by strict planning permission then they'd probably have a lot more money left than the pittance they'll get from Jobseekers Allowance.

Mind you if the businesses they worked for weren't hamstrung by massive government regulation and business rates then perhaps they wouldn't need to sack them in the first place.

But of course the answer is to impose yet more costs on the tax payers and businesses.

The tax is used in part to pay the social costs of private sector lay offs- lay offs often done to increase profits that are then paid out in higher salaries and bonus's at the top.

If you are so keen on everyone paying their way why should it be up to the taxpayer to bear the complete burden when a company sacks people- why should there not be some obligation to fund their retraining to ensure they do not remain a burden on the system, for example?

As always the champions of the 'free market' want to have the absolute right to externalise the social costs of their activities, while doing all they can to evade paying the taxes needed to deal with those costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax is used in part to pay the social costs of private sector lay offs- lay offs often done to increase profits that are then paid out in higher salaries and bonus's at the top.

If you are so keen on everyone paying their way why should it be up to the taxpayer to bear the complete burden when a company sacks people- why should there not be some obligation to fund their retraining to ensure they do not remain a burden on the system, for example?

As always the champions of the 'free market' want to have the absolute right to externalise the social costs of their activities, while doing all they can to evade paying the taxes needed to deal with those costs.

It shouldn't be up to the taxpayer to do all those things. I'm saying that if the state wasn't so big most people would have enough money not to need Jobseekers when they lose their jobs. Also they'd be loads more jobs without government interference. Land would be cheap as chips and housing wouldn't take up loads of the average income so we'd all be much better off. The state would still be there for those in dire need, but those people would be much fewer and take up much less than the current 44% of GDP.

Corporations passing on costs to the taxpayer is a public sector fail anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a fall off 220,000 fewer cars on UK roads between 2008 and 2009 and probably continuing to fall They could have put that in with their excuses of careful driving and whatnot for falling demand.

I suspect it's a combination of stronger windscreens (they have to be stronger to pass all the safety tests) and more shallowly angled windscreens...windscreen on cars these days are bigger and more gently sloping to improve the aerodynamics, meaning stone impacts and glancing rather than head-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It shouldn't be up to the taxpayer to do all those things. I'm saying that if the state wasn't so big most people would have enough money not to need Jobseekers when they lose their jobs. Also they'd be loads more jobs without government interference. Land would be cheap as chips and housing wouldn't take up loads of the average income so we'd all be much better off. The state would still be there for those in dire need, but those people would be much fewer and take up much less than the current 44% of GDP.

Corporations passing on costs to the taxpayer is a public sector fail anyway.

I think this view is a bit of a fantasy to be honest. I can agree that the state is too big but the idea that the average person would benefit from a market free of regulation or interference seems to be contradicted by the evidence- without the government to slow them down the corporates would simply do what they do now only more so- they would have us all working as debt slaves for a pittance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.