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!
Corbynomics: A Dystopia
Comments
-
Where has it been proved to work.TrickyTree83 wrote: »I wouldn't call it far right, libertarian is what I'd prefer but how you label me is up to you.
All that housing subsidy does is depress wages, even more so than economic migrants coming in and undercutting domestic workers. Because rich people can pay lower wages for the same services and live in rich areas without paying for the privilege.
It's been proven time and time again in history that free market economics works, true free market economics not the half baked version we're trying to make work. Leftist economies fail, spectacularly, leftist policies cause free market economies to fail. Look at the history of Rome, or any other western empire that falls. When the idea of welfare gets too big, some might say when it exists, it causes these imbalances.
Right now we're in a situation where we're not quite free market and we're not state controlled either, and for some it's not working otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rather than scrabbling around for a solution within the current rules we've made for ourselves, why not re-invent the whole system? The Finnish re-invented their entire education system because they were failing, they're now one of the best. Sometimes the current rules aren't the best.
How is that any different from being paid for the quality and amount of work you do correctly without government subsidy. If that means some people choose to live in squalid conditions because they're trying to make it work in an area where they either cannot find work or cannot get paid what they should for that work then they can move to another area until they find their niche.0 -
Where has it been proved to work.
Rome rose to power based on free market trading throughout the Mediterranean basin. It fell because of the welfare state in the form of free grain and constant devaluation because once the welfare state began it was a nightmare to remove it. It's far too much to go into in a forum post on MSE but there's plenty of literature around that will show you the same.
The British Empire rose off the back of free trade and free market economics, there was no welfare state, prior to colonialism in India we were only engaged in free trade in the Asian sub-continent.
When government gets too big - for whatever reason, and taxation grows it ruins economies. There needs to be incentive.0 -
Oh two very good examples I can see why we won't agree, you and a few others will soon have me thinking Rugged is right at least in the fact that some of the posters on here are only interested in themselves and so long as they are OK hard luck to the rest.TrickyTree83 wrote: »Rome rose to power based on free market trading throughout the Mediterranean basin. It fell because of the welfare state in the form of free grain and constant devaluation because once the welfare state began it was a nightmare to remove it. It's far too much to go into in a forum post on MSE but there's plenty of literature around that will show you the same.
The British Empire rose off the back of free trade and free market economics, there was no welfare state, prior to colonialism in India we were only engaged in free trade in the Asian sub-continent.
When government gets too big - for whatever reason, and taxation grows it ruins economies. There needs to be incentive.0 -
Oh two very good examples I can see why we won't agree, you and a few others will soon have me thinking Rugged is right at least in the fact that some of the posters on here are only interested in themselves and so long as they are OK hard luck to the rest.
Not really, the welfare state should be there to look after the sick, the disabled and those who fall on temporary hard times. Therefore taxation should be less, people can afford their childcare costs, or even stay at home mothers/fathers on lower incomes.
Who are these people you talk about that everyone will just forget?
You asked for examples, I gave you two. I didn't say either were perfect societies but the economics of them worked, for Rome a bloated welfare state was a contributing factor in its failure.0 -
Well I would have preferred it if the low paid didn't have to be made slaves.TrickyTree83 wrote: »Not really, the welfare state should be there to look after the sick, the disabled and those who fall on temporary hard times. Therefore taxation should be less, people can afford their childcare costs, or even stay at home mothers/fathers on lower incomes.
Who are these people you talk about that everyone will just forget?
You asked for examples, I gave you two. I didn't say either were perfect societies but the economics of them worked, for Rome a bloated welfare state was a contributing factor in its failure.0 -
Well I would have preferred it if the low paid didn't have to be made slaves.
What?
Seriously, what are you on about? The use of slavery by Rome was another contributory factor in their downfall.
Honestly if you're not going to read up about it you shouldn't just sling comments like that out there. In the early days of the Roman empire, when they were expanding across the Mediterranean basin it wasn't slavery that caused their success. It was liberty, code of laws, rights of citizens, and a free market on a solid and stable currency.
Because Rome used slaves, and eventually promoted their use it stunted progress and innovation. Why invent new ways to plough fields, or grind flour when labour is free? They had the technology for windmills and water wheels, yet used very few of these technologies for agriculture.
Anyway this is descending into farce as I try to explain more and more. Free market principles do work, you can find out about that. Free market principles would mean that a labourer in rich areas will be paid enough to make it worthwhile for the labourer to do the work in these areas. They may need to commute, but they should be compensated for the commute in increased earnings. As others on here have said it would reach an equilibrium on its own without state intervention.0 -
I don't think it would as I said all it would do is make the circumstances of the poor worse. The rich would have no concern for the conditions of the poor. You can't show me a modern economy where a totally free economy benefits all the people it that economy.TrickyTree83 wrote: »What?
Seriously, what are you on about? The use of slavery by Rome was another contributory factor in their downfall.
Honestly if you're not going to read up about it you shouldn't just sling comments like that out there. In the early days of the Roman empire, when they were expanding across the Mediterranean basin it wasn't slavery that caused their success. It was liberty, code of laws, rights of citizens, and a free market on a solid and stable currency.
Because Rome used slaves, and eventually promoted their use it stunted progress and innovation. Why invent new ways to plough fields, or grind flour when labour is free? They had the technology for windmills and water wheels, yet used very few of these technologies for agriculture.
Anyway this is descending into farce as I try to explain more and more. Free market principles do work, you can find out about that. Free market principles would mean that a labourer in rich areas will be paid enough to make it worthwhile for the labourer to do the work in these areas. They may need to commute, but they should be compensated for the commute in increased earnings. As others on here have said it would reach an equilibrium on its own without state intervention.0 -
I don't think it would as I said all it would do is make the circumstances of the poor worse. The rich would have no concern for the conditions of the poor. You can't show me a modern economy where a totally free economy benefits all the people it that economy.
Why would it make the circumstances of the poor worse?
Ok for an example that's perhaps a little closer to home than the Roman empire.
Self-employed tradesmen. They have a number of fixed costs that they'll need to cover, so they will know their limit on what they cannot drop below on a quote for a job. As a consumer you will look around for multiple quotes, plus possibly the quality of the workmanship. You'll then pick a tradesman to carry out the work at a price determined by the tradesman, because you're happy to pay that to this person in exchange for the job being done, and they are happy to work for you being paid that amount.
That makes sense right?
This system of trade is based on the same principles. If unskilled workers wouldn't do the job for a pittance because living costs were too high in the area then employers would have to pay more or move out of the area.0 -
-
TrickyTree83 wrote: »Free market principles do work
Yes, demonstrably, and "planned economies" have been shown to fail over and over again.
I'm not proposing capitalism naked in tooth and claw (avoiding monopolies and cartels is essential) but the state currently meddles and distorts far too much in the UK.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards