Money Supply

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

Yep. Although I would rephrase that slightly; it's an attempt to do what you say, but through the regulation of the banks, rather than with regulation of the banks as the end objective.

Fair point.

Ultimately it was another step down the road of Socialist lunacy (by Tories, Liberals and Labour) in the 1970s. You introduce a distortion into the market. When that has unintended consequences you introduce another and another and another.

All of a sudden you are sitting down with the unions with beer and sandwiches and asking them to support almost 20% real pay cuts for their members which ends up like this:

https://libcom.org/history/1978-1979-winter-of-discontent

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Fair point.

Ultimately it was another step down the road of Socialist lunacy (by Tories, Liberals and Labour) in the 1970s. You introduce a distortion into the market. When that has unintended consequences you introduce another and another and another.

All of a sudden you are sitting down with the unions with beer and sandwiches and asking them to support almost 20% real pay cuts for their members which ends up like this:

https://libcom.org/history/1978-1979-winter-of-discontent

As compared to applying major restrictions on house building with an expanding population, puttign in place rules on lending to provide systemic protection to the banking sector and then introducing all manner of govt gaurentees and subsidies so that those without big deposits can still buy property for political reasons.....

Generali

michaels wrote: »

As compared to applying major restrictions on house building with an expanding population, puttign in place rules on lending to provide systemic protection to the banking sector and then introducing all manner of govt gaurentees and subsidies so that those without big deposits can still buy property for political reasons.....

It's all the same thing.

Just because a party self-describes as not-socialist they may still have socialist policies.