Corbynomics: A Dystopia

westernpromise

The Romans were also pretty good on law and order, crime being a very high social cost. There is no record of anyone reoffending after being crucified.

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

You don't say what it was like for the poor.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

fine if you earn £20k.

We pay wet-behind-the-ears grads £30k pa on day one. We even pay placement students (so undergrads) £17k pa. I even pay my secretary a fair bit over £20k pa and this is "oop North".

If people really can't be bothered acquiring any skills then why should society provide them with a valuable house? Dunno what the solution is. China-style dormitories maybe?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

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

probably most of these properties wouldn't meet the standards required for social tenants : ok for people using their own money of course

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

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

That's ok where property is that price but then as you point out its not a big problem in those areas. In the south east the only ans is to build more housing although it might save the government some money if they used their access to low interest rates to buy some of the existing BTLs.

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

You don't say what it was like for the poor.

They were fed and housed until the entire system collapsed, then they were destitute.

You're now going to try to compare conditions then to now, well tuberculosis was rampant in ancient Rome, medicine wasn't particularly good. So if you want me to admit that they lived in squalor and disease then yes, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a modern day free market where people are happy to be taxed for an NHS and a moderate welfare state to help those genuinely in need. But not to subsidise as it does right now.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

probably most of these properties wouldn't meet the standards required for social tenants : ok for people using their own money of course

A lot of them are being paid for with our money.

TrickyTree83

westernpromise wrote: »

The Romans were also pretty good on law and order, crime being a very high social cost. There is no record of anyone reoffending after being crucified.

haha yeah, but really the laws which carried the death penalty really got crazy when it began to fall apart.

For example laws were introduced which meant you had to carry on in the profession of your parents because professionals couldn't make a living, so laws were passed to make profession hereditary on pain of death.

There were also laws regarding tax collections, your local tax collector would have to stump up the cash whether or not they collected the tax from the local populace or not.

So whilst not all of ancient Rome is comparable, particularly after the emperors took power the rise to power was built on the back of discipline, hard work, citizenship and right, codes of laws and a free market.

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

They were fed and housed until the entire system collapsed, then they were destitute.

You're now going to try to compare conditions then to now, well tuberculosis was rampant in ancient Rome, medicine wasn't particularly good. So if you want me to admit that they lived in squalor and disease then yes, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a modern day free market where people are happy to be taxed for an NHS and a moderate welfare state to help those genuinely in need. But not to subsidise as it does right now.

As you say we are not in Roman times and people should be entitled to more and that includes reasonable housing. I also think the welfare state is broken, but I don't think leaving everything to the free market will work to the benefit of everyone.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

people should be entitled

Really? No matter how little you're prepared to use the old grey matter, you're entitled? No matter how little you're prepared to break into a sweat, you' entitled?

Is it any wonder we have so many unskilled people yet so many who feel entitled?