Bit shocked

Mistermeaner

I like a lady with a little odour (or dainty wet patches as you call them)

BobQ

So inequality is becoming a problem and will become an increasing problem as rates rise.

Some people have failed to deal with their debts despite several years of low interest rates that mean they have had a real opportunity to pay them down.

But the Government is actually planning to encourage an increase in private debt as a way of expanding the economy even though economic wisdom is that it will lead to recession.

The programme itself made no clear proposals to solve what it presented as a big problem apart from debt write offs for personal debts ( to avoid welfare payments needing to rise) and abolishing paper money to facilitate negative interest.

I do feel that those who have debts they cannot repay need to have assets repossessed where it makes economic sense to do so. Otherwise there is no incentive for people to stop taking on more unaffordable debt but I agree this makes no sense if they then become homeless or welfare dependent.

Abolishing money might have other benefits (hitting the black economy), but punishing the frugal and thrifty seems unfair when the problem is down to over-consumption by people spending other people's money.

Of course they never discussed the option of raising taxes on the people who have won the poker game to encourage them to spend their ill gotten gains, or at least giving them incentives to spend them on things that create the economic activity. Of course they will say "my money why should I" but why should ordinary people have negative interest applied to their electronic pounds.

Thought provoking programme, but as I found on another thread if you talk about inequality on here a McCarthyite will be along to impeach you

Mistermeaner

BobQ wrote: »

So inequality is becoming a problem and will become an increasing problem as rates rise.

Some people have failed to deal with their debts despite several years of low interest rates that mean they have had a real opportunity to pay them down.

But the Government is actually planning to encourage an increase in private debt as a way of expanding the economy even though economic wisdom is that it will lead to recession.

The programme itself made no clear proposals to solve what it presented as a big problem apart from debt write offs for personal debts ( to avoid welfare payments needing to rise) and abolishing paper money to facilitate negative interest.

I do feel that those who have debts they cannot repay need to have assets repossessed where it makes economic sense to do so. Otherwise there is no incentive for people to stop taking on more unaffordable debt but I agree this makes no sense if they then become homeless or welfare dependent.

Abolishing money might have other benefits (hitting the black economy), but punishing the frugal and thrifty seems unfair when the problem is down to over-consumption by people spending other people's money.

Of course they never discussed the option of raising taxes on the people who have won the poker game to encourage them to spend their ill gotte gains, or at least giving them incentives to spend them on things that create the economic activity. Of course they will say "my money why should I" but why should ordinary people have negative interest applied to their electronic pounds.

Thought provoking programme, but as I found on another thread if you talk about inequality on here a McCarthyite will be along to impeach you

What you on about Bob?

BobQ

Mistermeaner wrote: »

What you on about Bob?

As shocking as it might seem to you, I was discussing the programme cited in the original post which was about the problems of inequality, debt, and some economists talking of possible solutions.

Of course if you have not listened to the programme .......

ETA To be fair, most of the posts on this thread have ignored the issues in the programme in the OP. So typical that arguments focus on London housing issues

Mistermeaner

I was confused by what all that had to do with cycling and sweaty women

zagubov

We can only afford to live in London because we bought about 20 years ago, on two salaries.

A lot of new houses are empty as they've been bought as investments by absentee owners so far away they'll never be there. Fair enough I know money needs to be made, but this is starting to get in the way of the other use houses have, which is to accommodate people.

In fact I seriously wonder how relevant or useful much of the new house construction is. Much of it is so overpriced it's answering a question nobody local has asked.

michaels

zagubov wrote: »

We can only afford to live in London because we bought about 20 years ago, on two salaries.

A lot of new houses are empty as they've been bought as investments by absentee owners so far away they'll never be there. Fair enough I know money needs to be made, but this is starting to get in the way of the other use houses have, which is to accommodate people.

In fact I seriously wonder how relevant or useful much of the new house construction is. Much of it is so overpriced it's answering a question nobody local has asked.

I guess it pays for your iphone, petrol etc. ie all the imports we wouldn't be able to afford if we didn't sell stuff to foreigners.

lisyloo

Yes there is something very wrong. Many living in horrible infested multi occupancy buildings whilst the landlords make money from tax payers ( nothing wrong with profit, but this is extortion and human misery) whilst a lot of housing is empty. Plus non working people being given housing in central London whilst commuters endure misery. sorry but non working need to move out to make way for workers.

zagubov

michaels wrote: »

I guess it pays for your iphone, petrol etc. ie all the imports we wouldn't be able to afford if we didn't sell stuff to foreigners.

It's the poor who're paying for it disproportionately via high rents and their lack of housing. We seem to be exporting our manufacturing and our land ownership simultaneously.

When people question why Britain needs a manufacturing sector, it's because it could make us less dependant on foreign house purchases making our own housing inadequate, cramped and unaffordable.

Oh and I'd agree with ViolaLass about New Orleans. Went there a lot in the 80s and 90s. Fascinating city, very cheap place to live. Shame about the crime rate , but that's the US for you.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

It's the poor who're paying for it disproportionately via high rents and their lack of housing. We seem to be exporting our manufacturing and our land ownership simultaneously.

When people question why Britain needs a manufacturing sector, it's because it could make us less dependant on foreign house purchases making our own housing inadequate, cramped and unaffordable.

Oh and I'd agree with ViolaLass about New Orleans. Went there a lot in the 80s and 90s. Fascinating city, very cheap place to live. Shane about the crime rate , but that's the US for you.

The UK does have a very successful manufacturing sector. What it doesn't do any longer is dangerous and polluting metal bashing work thankfully. What it does do is high value adding specialised production.