Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

One person on their own doesn't need a 2 bedroom flat or the £150k mortgage to buy it.

The cheapest 1 bed is £120k you'd need to have a £12k deposit and be earning about £20k fine if you earn £20k. I'm not arguing anybody should be able to buy anything just that property should be some affordable property for people on lower earnings.

westernpromise

ukcarper wrote: »

The cheapest 1 bed is £120k you'd need to have a £12k deposit and be earning about £20k fine if you earn £20k. I'm not arguing anybody should be able to buy anything just that property should be some affordable property for people on lower earnings.

So who is social housing for then? Sounds like we should sell it all.

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

That's OK in theory but it's not what happens.

TrickyTree83

gadgetmind wrote: »

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.

Yes, yes, thank you. I wouldn't advocate that we leave people destitute and starving on the streets, that's terrible. I would wholeheartedly agree with some form of safety net, preferably in a way in which the recipient does not choose how it is spent, i.e. money for food is in the form of vouchers or stamps not cash.

No iPad's, holidays or TV's on this form of welfare state. It's to eat, and to live with a roof over your head, nothing else. A mechanism for bills to be paid by the taxpayer rather than by pumping money into the claimants account.

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

So who is social housing for then? Sounds like we should sell it all.

Social housing should be for low paid but it's not possible for most low paid people to get social housing and most end up in subsidised private rental accomadation. The only way we can bring down the cost of that is to provide more housing.

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

That's OK in theory but it's not what happens.

If the poor don't get paid enough they can just withhold their labour to people who refuse to pay the going rate.

To bring back the comparison, under the Roman free market the average citizen only had to work 2 days of the year to pay their annual taxes in full. Because there was a minimal government, also the Roman armed forces built infrastructure, perhaps we could use our armed forces for something similar rather than interfering in the affairs of other countries, seems more productive to me.

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

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'd agree that state medals too much and benefits have got out control but that doesn't make housing affordable for everyone.

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If the poor don't get paid enough they can just withhold their labour to people who refuse to pay the going rate.

To bring back the comparison, under the Roman free market the average citizen only had to work 2 days of the year to pay their annual taxes in full. Because there was a minimal government, also the Roman armed forces built infrastructure, perhaps we could use our armed forces for something similar rather than interfering in the affairs of other countries, seems more productive to me.

It's not how it works the standards fall.

What happened to the poor in Rome.

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

Social housing should be for low paid but it's not possible for most low paid people to get social housing and most end up in subsidised private rental accomadation. The only way we can bring down the cost of that is to provide more housing.

but does it makes sense for the government to build new social homes that might come in at £150k a unit when it can just buy existing homes in most the country for under that price and label that social

So for instance, if in the North East, The Midlands, Wales, NI, Scotland there are currently 250,000 terraces and flats for sale below £100,000 should the government buy them up and fill them with social tenants?

It would be far far quicker than trying to build 250,000 new homes. It would be cheaper. It would be less problematic (no NIMBY protests) and it would be mixed communities


If you feel there arent enough social homes the logical choice is for the government to buy some off the market and rent them out.

But of course there are enough social homes people just like to cry that there arent. Just like in my area of east Londn 60% of all the homes are social stock and people still cry that isnt enough

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

It's not how it works the standards fall.

What happened to the poor in Rome.

Ok you're really going to make me go into the intricacies of the fall of Rome?

Right, so we know that Rome came to power with free market economics and free trade in an area roughly the size of the USA around the Med basin.

As their government systems changed from republic to dictatorship a series of badly thought out government policies brought about the following.

- welfare state of free grain for the poor
- increased use of slavery
- decreased value of labour
- provincial labourers were priced out and moved into the city to claim the grain welfare
- welfare costs for the government increased
- government raised taxation / borrowed more / used antiquity's version of QE (devaluation of the denarius)
- as taxation increased even more provincial workers couldn't make a living, so more people emigrated to the city for the welfare
- taxation rose to pay for the increased welfare
- rinse and repeat until failure

By the time the Roman empire fell the silver denarius went from almost 100% silver to 0.01% silver because of inflation, that's not inflation in the cost of goods but inflation in the amount of currency in circulation to devalue debt and borrow more, until they could do so no more.

When the government got involved in the free market, it went wrong because it doesn't balance correctly. I suspect in a modern economy we would be able to maintain a moderate welfare state alongside free market principles. What we have right now is far involved and it's skewing the economy in favour of the rich with this illusion that it skews it in favour of the poor rather than being equal except in terms of wealth that has been amassed.