Friday, November 26, 2010

No sh*t sherlock

Income inequality is the real problem

A free market guy agreeing with the left? Interesting take on the housing issue.

Posted by chrisch @ 11:13 AM (970 views)
Please complete the required fields.

3 thoughts on “No sh*t sherlock

  • This topic is something that i have been pondering more and more recently. I have never in the past been left of centre as both sides usually have some good, however, contrary to some comments on this site in the past, I am increasing wondering if the Cameron government is slowly trying to return the nation to old style UK with a priveleged ruling class. He is surrounded by a load of Eton toffs who’s idea of reality i think would be very blinkered, bearing in mind there priveleged background. Raising of the tuition fees is going to rule out university for a lot of people. The new plan for ex forces personnel to be fast tracked to teachers has entailed the conservateives approaching Sandhurst (yes that same place packed to the rafters with upper class twits, although there are some exceptions).

    There was also an interesting documentary by a well known american film producer (I think Michael Moore but i may be wrong) who produced an excellent documentary on the changes that had taken place to the american distribution of wealth and how this has been responsible for both parents needing to work where as in the past lots of mothers would stay at home and raise children as the husbands wage was on average able to support house purchase and the raising of the family-this has been researched and reported as being a contributory factor in breakdown of traditional family values. This was all reported as being part of a right wing conspiracy that started under regan and Thatcher years. If you look at how Nick Clegg has also fell completely into line with a lots of the Conservatives policies,
    maybe there is some sort of manipulation of the system to a right wing elite.

    Either way, there is big trouble ahead!!! Social unrest on the way for sure.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • mark wadsworth says:

    Mathematically he is wrong, this thought occurred to me this morning when I was thinking about something else.

    Let’s imagine incomes of ten different people are £10, £20 and so on up to £100. There is a shortage of houses and there are nine identical houses up for sale. The bloke who only earns £10 is screwed of course (that’s the English way), but the price of the houses will be such that Mr £20 can afford it.

    Conversely, instead of this massive income equality, total income is the same and all ten people earn £55. There are nine identical houses up for sale. There is no one poorer person who drops out of the bidding, so the end selling price for the houses comes in at whatever Mr £55 can afford, which is a heck of a lot more than what Mr £20 can afford.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • mark w
    Not necessarily: in the first case, one high earner may choose to buy two houses, thus excluding the £20 earner and potentially boosting prices towards the 2nd case.

    Anyway, the point is not a numerical one. The author’s point is the same as Marx made long ago, namely that the economically powerful pay the proles less and less, then lend them money so that they may purchase goods to maintain the capitalists’ income. Obviously such an unstable practice has the result we’ve seen.

    Please complete the required fields.

Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>