We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
High public debt = low economic growth ?
Comments
-
we don't have a free market economy
what's your question?
We do went it suits.;)
Not quite sure why you are referring to Russia?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »We do went it suits.;)
Not quite sure why you are referring to Russia?
you have a fairly consistent view that 'better' long term planning is the solution to all/most problems
the soviet union also believed in long term plans.
whilst there are some situations that are best addressed by long term plans, most problems are best addressed by allowing competition to arrive at the best result for the people who use the products or services (i.e. involving little or no state planning)
so the association with the soviet experiment ... the 'solution' to the failure of a soviet plan was a 'better' plan, how's failure was addressed by a even 'better' plan etc.
whilst one would agree I'm sure that the current Russian state is a gangster state, nevertheless many problems have been solved by the state doing nothing; e.g. the chronic food shortages in the Soviet period were simply solved by the state stop planning and allowing the market to meet the demand.0 -
you have a fairly consistent view that 'better' long term planning is the solution to all/most problems
the soviet union also believed in long term plans.
whilst there are some situations that are best addressed by long term plans, most problems are best addressed by allowing competition to arrive at the best result for the people who use the products or services (i.e. involving little or no state planning)
so the association with the soviet experiment ... the 'solution' to the failure of a soviet plan was a 'better' plan, how's failure was addressed by a even 'better' plan etc.
whilst one would agree I'm sure that the current Russian state is a gangster state, nevertheless many problems have been solved by the state doing nothing; e.g. the chronic food shortages in the Soviet period were simply solved by the state stop planning and allowing the market to meet the demand.
The Times Rich List seems to give an insight into "successful" Russians.
Competition doesn't necessarily arrive at the best solution for all merely for the few. Like it or not utilities and infrastructure have to support us all. A growing majority do not have the choice of an upgrade.
I have no problem in allowing competition to run riot when it isn't a gravy train for the supplier and when they have to fight for market share. Where there is real discretion as whether you need to "consume" their product.
Where the supplier is expecting the tax payer to pay or underwrite projects, through non discretionary support, then I do question why they are seen as the panacea and the only way forward.
Proper, prior, planning, prevents, p**s, poor, performance.
When it comes to things like long term energy or water supply and mass transit systems then yes I do think some decent long term plans are required. The cost of short term tactical fixes and constant remediation will inevitably lead to higher prices for consumers along with poorer service. Forcing energy consumers to pay for less than efficient SVP installations is an example."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
im a public sector worker and from informal chats with colleagues , a lot are on the sick , is it because they can get away with it.. probably is. but how do you protect the genuine ones and root out skivers... the long term answer ... will be to privatise from a macro perspective.... government will have no choice , especially as spending creeps over 90% of gdp, another problem is people are paying off debt affecting their marginal propensity to consume.... also not saving lousy interest rates. we will bump along the bottom like japan did for the next few years0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards