Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Worth a read - pretty much where my thoughts are.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/23/panic-davos-inequality-global-elite

Quote

Populism of all stripes may be anathema to the billionaire class, but they helped create it. For decades, they inflicted insecurity on the rest of us and told us it was for our own good. They have rigged an economic system so that it paid them bonanzas and stiffed others. They have lobbied and funded politicians to give them the easiest of rides. Topped with red Maga caps and yellow vests, this backlash is uglier and more uncouth than anything you’ll see in the snow-capped Alps, but the high rollers meeting there can claim exec producer credits for the whole rotten lot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed that article, and I think it picks up well on the key current issue of inequality.

However, I don't agree with his implicit conclusion that socialism is the answer to everything:

Quote

Thatcher may be gone but her ideology keeps on taking cash out of your pay packets. If workers today got the same share of national income as in the 70s, we would be far better off.

Yes, if workers got a bigger slice of the pie they would be better off - but only if the mechanism used to reduce inequality doesn't at the same time have the side effect of shrinking the overall pie by more as well.  Of course the dream would be a pie as big as the capitalists generate, shared out as evenly as the socialists would share it - but we haven't in practice yet been able to do that.  A happy medium needs to be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I enjoyed that article, and I think it picks up well on the key current issue of inequality.

However, I don't agree with his implicit conclusion that socialism is the answer to everything:

Yes, if workers got a bigger slice of the pie they would be better off - but only if the mechanism used to reduce inequality doesn't at the same time have the side effect of shrinking the overall pie by more as well.  Of course the dream would be a pie as big as the capitalists generate, shared out as evenly as the socialists would share it - but we haven't in practice yet been able to do that.  A happy medium needs to be found.

"Mildly disagree"... ;)

What's better, in terms of sustainability and QoL? £100 shared between 10 people, but 1 person gets £99, or £50 shared between 10 people, but one person gets £10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, longgone said:

26 people on a bus . 

surely one IED could sort this mess out. 

Extremely surprised many haven't already tried tbh. Of course they probably have and we just don't know about it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ftb_fml said:

Extremely surprised many haven't already tried tbh. Of course they probably have and we just don't know about it..

own half the world and its still not enough.  i doubt dropping the 26 would make much difference like trying to exterminate knot weed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, anonguest said:

This time last year they were queuing up to tell us the recovery was firmly established, China fixed etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

This time last year they were queuing up to tell us the recovery was firmly established, China fixed etc.

 

I can never help but chuckle when I hear Joe Average, seemingly feel reassured, recite these various types of "don't worry" type messages (e.g. "there will be no recession", etc).  They seem to need to be made to actively process the thought/concept of "well? what else would you expect them to say??!!!" .   After all hearing the head of the IMF one day tell us that a recession IS coming would be akin to an EA telling you now is not a good time to buy a house.

Equally bizzarre, to me at least, is that financial markets always seem to kneejerk react to these sorts of dumb headlines. Surely the so called 'smart money' can't really believe this guff either.  How can they, of all people, not realise that it is just pure public relations massaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomandlu said:

"Mildly disagree"... ;)

What's better, in terms of sustainability and QoL? £100 shared between 10 people, but 1 person gets £99, or £50 shared between 10 people, but one person gets £10?

Well, the latter in your example - but that doesn't prove anything because those are just made-up straw man numbers. 

Let me again repeat my point which is that I think we need to run those numbers in reality and find the right balance, rather than as a big political bunfight around whether (1) capitalism is best because the pie is biggest or (2) socialism is best because the sharing is fairest, when the best answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, longgone said:

own half the world and its still not enough.  i doubt dropping the 26 would make much difference like trying to exterminate knot weed. 

It might serve to remind them of the inevitable endgame to their exploitation and greed. Sooner or later the majority will become desperate enough to take back by force what the elites have for years been slowly bleeding them of through deception and coercion.

As you say even the obscene wealth inequality they enjoy evidently isn't enough for them; and what practical gain does further exploitation achieve when they already have more money than they could possibly know what to do with? They're increasingly risking literally everything (both globally and personally) to feed their own egos.

One would think they shouldn't need a reminder of the limitations of being the richest man in the graveyard..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Well, the latter in your example - but that doesn't prove anything because those are just made-up straw man numbers. 

Let me again repeat my point which is that I think we need to run those numbers in reality and find the right balance, rather than as a big political bunfight around whether (1) capitalism is best because the pie is biggest or (2) socialism is best because the sharing is fairest, when the best answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

"Strongly agree"... ;)

I personally think of myself as a capitalist where markets are concerned (excluding essential natural monopolies), and a socialist where governments are concerned. Capitalism, to succeed, needs aggressive regulation to curb its self-destructive impulses, rather than friends in high places...

As to my numbers, they are indeed made up, but that's not the point - imho gdp (which is what we're essentially talking about) needs dividing by some factor of the gini to give a true measure of a society's 'wealth'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ftb_fml said:

It might serve to remind them of the inevitable endgame to their exploitation and greed. Sooner or later the majority will become desperate enough to take back by force what the elites have for years been slowly bleeding them of through deception and coercion.

As you say even the obscene wealth inequality they enjoy evidently isn't enough for them; and what practical gain does further exploitation achieve when they already have more money than they could possibly know what to do with? They're increasingly risking literally everything (both globally and personally) to feed their own egos.

One would think they shouldn't need a reminder of the limitations of being the richest man in the graveyard..

 

Because they are so far up their own backside they probably think they can evade death as well.  There will be some event to take back some of that wealth and then the cycle will continue again.  funny how everything can be related back to one word GREED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scottbeard said:

I enjoyed that article, and I think it picks up well on the key current issue of inequality.

However, I don't agree with his implicit conclusion that socialism is the answer to everything:

Nor me.  I actually thought the article was infantile nonsense.  To suggest that a multi billionaire is bothered is nonsense if the economy collapses they are still minted.  

Personally I have no envy of people who have more money than I do, or yachts, mansions, planes etc.

I am healthy have a wonderful wife and kids, enough money to have a beer and go out when I want to.  I do not worry about anything that I cannot change myself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, happyguy said:

Personally I have no envy of people who have more money than I do, or yachts, mansions, planes etc.

I am healthy have a wonderful wife and kids, enough money to have a beer and go out when I want to.

Well, I grant that you chose yer moniker well!

 

There was a time when I agreed with this. However, I have to admit to some naivety in that regard. The fact is some, maybe the majority, are never satisfied with their lot.

So eventually, you will find one of these sorts:

- trying to seduce your wife;

- exploit your children;

- depreciate the value of your savings or wages;

- restrict how far or where you can go;

- and lastly, yes, even attempting to steal your beer!

And contrary to whatever the Guardian might say, I'd guess most of these sorts won't be attending Davos!

Edited by Sledgehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

"Strongly agree"... ;)

I personally think of myself as a capitalist where markets are concerned (excluding essential natural monopolies), and a socialist where governments are concerned. Capitalism, to succeed, needs aggressive regulation to curb its self-destructive impulses, rather than friends in high places...

As to my numbers, they are indeed made up, but that's not the point - imho gdp (which is what we're essentially talking about) needs dividing by some factor of the gini to give a true measure of a society's 'wealth'.

Agree.....what Capitalism doesn't want is people to see clearly that not only is the wealth gap getting wider, but those on the wrong side of it are growing in numbers, people to be fair prefer to see fairness, wealth being shared more equally and fairly.......after all it is only the not so wealthy that create the wealth of the wealthy.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, winkie said:

Agree.....what Capitalism doesn't want is people to see clearly that not only is the wealth gap getting wider, but those on the wrong side of it are growing in numbers, people to be fair prefer to see fairness, wealth being shared more equally and fairly.......after all it is only the not so wealthy that create the wealth of the wealthy.;)

Can we coin the term 'champagne liberals' for these ####s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

Let me again repeat my point which is that I think we need to run those numbers in reality and find the right balance, rather than as a big political bunfight around whether (1) capitalism is best because the pie is biggest or (2) socialism is best because the sharing is fairest, when the best answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

I don't think the answer is more capitalism or more socialism, neither of these address what is actually wrong and there is much more to political economy than where to set the balance between the two.

The main reason the masses in the West are suffering is because of the price of land. Nobody created land and then it was taken into private hands by some very dodgy historical processes (the Inclosure Acts in the UK, torn up treaties with the Native Americans in the US) which were neither capitalist nor socialist, they were basically theft from the peasants by brute force. Hundreds of years later the landless peasants are still suffering from the weak economic position they are born into.

The answer is not more capitalism or more socialism like abolishing the minimum wage or increasing means-tested benefits. The land problem needs to be fixed, and in my opinion the best way to do that is for the government to collect all rents (priced at the rate of unimproved land) and distribute them to citizens in the form of a basic income.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, winkie said:

Agree.....what Capitalism doesn't want is people to see clearly that not only is the wealth gap getting wider, but those on the wrong side of it are growing in numbers, people to be fair prefer to see fairness, wealth being shared more equally and fairly.......after all it is only the not so wealthy that create the wealth of the wealthy.;)

i think that is all plain to see for everyone capitalism is no more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, longgone said:

i think that is all plain to see for everyone capitalism is no more. 

Yes, it doesn't help that the primary objective of monetary and fiscal policy appears to be to support asset prices and hence keep the rich rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

I don't think the answer is more capitalism or more socialism, neither of these address what is actually wrong and there is much more to political economy than where to set the balance between the two.

The main reason the masses in the West are suffering is because of the price of land. Nobody created land and then it was taken into private hands by some very dodgy historical processes (the Inclosure Acts in the UK, torn up treaties with the Native Americans in the US) which were neither capitalist nor socialist, they were basically theft from the peasants by brute force. Hundreds of years later the landless peasants are still suffering from the weak economic position they are born into.

The answer is not more capitalism or more socialism like abolishing the minimum wage or increasing means-tested benefits. The land problem needs to be fixed, and in my opinion the best way to do that is for the government to collect all rents (priced at the rate of unimproved land) and distribute them to citizens in the form of a basic income.

I agree. Well said. Capitalism works when everyone has a stake in it. What we've got now isn't capitalism, it's Zionism. The banks want us all dependent on their stupid plastic cards, and we're nearly there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Yes, it doesn't help that the primary objective of monetary and fiscal policy appears to be to support asset prices and hence keep the rich rich.

if capitalism worked the banks would have gone 10 years ago. if you fail you lose if you lose you close. simple. There needs to be a ring fenced part of every banking institution to cut loses to the bank itself and not savers and no bails out should the prodigal economic wonders fail. 

surely as these banking folk are paid so much they can work economic miracles without the assistant of public money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EnglishinWales said:

I agree. Well said. Capitalism works when everyone has a stake in it. What we've got now isn't capitalism, it's Zionism. The banks want us all dependent on their stupid plastic cards, and we're nearly there.

oh  gawd, Momentum have turned up again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EnglishinWales said:

I agree. Well said. Capitalism works when everyone has a stake in it. What we've got now isn't capitalism, it's Zionism. The banks want us all dependent on their stupid plastic cards, and we're nearly there.

Or has a hope of having a stake in it.

Anyone can become rich by collecting rent......very many (a growing number) will never become rich by going to work every day.;)

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 293 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.