Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    Keynesian when they want to be.

    A true Keynesian would have seen economic contraction and responded immediately by lowering taxes. Labours first response was to consider a NI increase.
    When did they consider that?

    I thought their first tax response was to reduce VAT and reduce stamp duty on house sales?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    I think you'll find they did. You should have a read of this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welfare-Stat.../dp/1842750631

    If you read it with an open mind I think you'll find it interesting.
    Ta, the reviews look good, does it cover state pensions since they were brought in circa 1910?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Ta, the reviews look good, does it cover state pensions since they were brought in circa 1910?
    Yeah there is a bit about pensions in there. If you go to his website he usually updates the book with further articles. http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/

    It's a bit preachy in parts but interesting none the less.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    ...
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    ...
    Another one is From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    People living in rural or semi-rural areas with poor transport links actually pay higher council tax, which is where much of the funding for transport subsidies comes from, because it's based on the value of their property. I would be pissed if I lived in a village or a hamlet and was expected to have a car despite paying considerably higher (on average) council tax.

    Think it through.
    Well, let's think it through, the same property in both rural or urban areas is worth much more in an urban area, due to the value of the land. So they only pay more because they have bigger properties (and indeed I'd argue that there's no justification for a property tax but alas). Furthermore, from this argument any subsidy should be funded entirely from local government, not central since council tax goes straight into local government coffers.

    However, I think ore pertinently is that the tax system being unfair is not a reason to argue to state intervention in another area - stop the intervention and reform the tax system, that's the answer - I see the tax and spending as disconnected.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But it isn't just remote areas.
    Its fairly large towns and small cities (Wells) that are being cut off.
    Some of these had brilliant transport links until the 1960's, and some of the people who live there now rely on the bus services.
    Wells has the population of a village-small town, and only qualifies as a city because it has a cathedral. I would count that as remote.

    Furthermore, my point still stands, since the transport links only get cut off if there's not enough people. As I pointed out, there are many advantages to living somewhere with not enough people, and it's up to individuals to trade them off - rather than the government charge extra to try to remove the downsides of one by adding to the downsides of another.

    As for having good transport links until the 60s, that merely meant that everyone else was paying for their transport links up until then, it doesn't mean it was right. If there's enough people that rely on the bus services, then the bus services will keep running, and if there aren't, then not that many people will be affected.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    As I pointed out, there are many advantages to living somewhere with not enough people, and it's up to individuals to trade them off - rather than the government charge extra to try to remove the downsides of one by adding to the downsides of another.
    This is all well and good in terms of economic theory, but the problem is that if you leave things like public transport entirely to market forces and you consider that people who get irregular buses have the trade-off of living in a non-crowded area, you don't address issues such as distribution of wealth, cutting congestion, and cutting carbon emissions.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFatController)
    This is all well and good in terms of economic theory, but the problem is that if you leave things like public transport entirely to market forces and you consider that people who get irregular buses have the trade-off of living in a non-crowded area, you don't address issues such as distribution of wealth, cutting congestion, and cutting carbon emissions.
    Congestion and carbon emissions are sorted by either the privatisation of roads & a carbon/fuel tax, or a toll roads system & carbon/fuel tax (but with the fuel duty much lower, since it's not trying to capture the congestion externality too). It's about internalising the externality so that each individual's utility maximisation brings the socially optimal solution.

    As for distribution of wealth, I don't think the government should care, beyond guaranteeing a minimum, acceptable standard of living for all (which is best done through a negative income tax, non means-tested system).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Due to artificial spending bubbles by a Keynesian (ish) government to promote high levels of employment; when these projects were found to be unsustainable and the bubble burst all of these people lost there jobs.
    yes capitalism - boom and bust economics.



    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Artificial low interest rates and loans given out by the CBE to non-creditworthy parties (also triggering a housing bubble).
    this didnt happen becuase people were stupid, it happened becuase they were rewarded (with profit) for lending. regarding people who took the credit....if they were paid enough in wages to buy the neccessities they wouldnt need to to take credit to pay for neccessaties. adverts and a stressful environment, a competitive individualist environment makes people want to spend money on luxuries and general escapism - some people bought these with credit. again if they were paid enough in wages tey would not need credit. Rising profits and prices an stagnating or cutting wages lea to a problem of demand. this is temporarily solve by pumping up the credit economy - but as we know bubbles burst and this state of affairs cannot last forever.




    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    A lot of this is quite possibly a result of Thatcher's 'right to buy' to be fair; still, I maintain that liberalised trade and gold standard would trigger long term sustainable growth and more cheaper/affordable housing for most people so we wouldn't be so dependant on council housing anymore.
    true about right to buy and the idea of a 'property owning democracy'. it is also labour for not aressing the probelm starte by thatcher though. 5m on the council house waiting list also creates the ground for the far right to become powerful through arguments such as 'why are english people without a council house yet imiigrants are living in council houses - why arnt we looking after our own. if we kick out the immigrants there will be more houses for us, its simple maths'. but of course if we built homes then that argument would find it hard to resonate among people.

    The problem with affordable housing in teh private for profit sector is that if you can sell a house for 300k rather than 100k it makes sense. so afforable housing isnt really met by the private sector - perhaps only when the government subsides it. but then why not just fund the whole thing themselves and recieve the rent back from the tenants.



    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    The market is relatively quick at reabsorbing the labour force although I have no doubt that harsh measures taken by the Tories now will be quite hard for a lot of people in the short term (but rewarding in the long term, assuming that idiot, Miliband doesn't make it as the next PM).
    a lot of people will be hurt, some people will actually die as a result of the cuts as well. I don't think the market is quick at reabsoring the labour force. there have been around 2.5m unemployed for around 3 years now - how long do we give them? whats more, unemployment is starting to increase currently at 2.53m atm an i predict it will reach 3m by the end of the year. the private sector are cutting jobs atm. look at burtons biscuit factory. 350 jobs to go like that. boots 900 jobs, thousnads at lloyds, jobs to be cut at autoglass. lots of companies disappearing completly (woolworths, virgin - or what ever it became xavi ithink something like that etc.) private sector recruitment freezes hours cut from staff etc. it basically seems to be doing a lot of stuff to worsed the crisis.



    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Yep, this is a symptom of central banking.
    why?



    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Damned unions protecting their members from competition.

    Damned Keynesian bankers.
    what?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    yes capitalism - boom and bust economics.
    There's nothing inherent in a capitalist economy that would leads to boom and bust cycles, multiple voluntary transactions should not lead to a fluctuating volume of it.

    What does is when there are distortions in the price signal, which cause resources to be pumped into unproductive things, and then that unravels. The key one here being the interest rate channelling investments into unproductive investments, since it's set centrally, rather than by the millions of buyers and sellers of loans.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And where would you get the money to fund all of these state run institutions? The private sector you just cut? If you thought privately run banks are doing a bad job just wait until when they are fully nationalized.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    But you would be personally happy to lose all your savings for that right? Not necessarily now but in the future too.
    Why would I lose any savings twice, both now and in the future?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    yes capitalism - boom and bust economics.
    The bust period is a red herring; focussing our attentions on trying to solve the bust period is a red herring. By austrian economic theory, it is the boom period that causes the entire cycle in the first place.

    Imagine that you have 20 tonnes of bricks which you (incorrectly) calculate will be able to build 7 houses, whereas, in fact they can only build 5 houses. So you proceed to build 7 houses. The first 4 houses will be built successfully (sustainable economic growth). The remaining 3 houses will remain incomplete construction projects (mal-investments into capital/artificial economic growth period); they are useless and the resources which could have been used in the construction of the 5th house are gone. The net result is of one house. You could have built 5 houses but now only have 4. The bust period is now the period after the four houses are built in which the project manager must sacrifice resources he would not have had to to make up for the net loss of one house, had he correctly calculated the profits that could have been derived from the 20 tonnes of bricks in the first place.

    The same is the problem with our economic crises at the moment; too many unsustainable projects were (incorrectly) funded by new labour.

    Because government is a central planning agency who have an endless supply of tax revenue and borrowed money to fund their crazy projects (mal-investments), they don't feel the 'pain' of their decisions like the project manager would in my initial example. Furthermore, they have no calculation mechanism; they do not know what the correct projects are to invest in because they own a monopoly on the project. Since there are no competing agencies for a given service provided by government (or if there are, their ability to compete is highly limited by imposed regulations and uneven grounds for competing - the tax revenues owned by the government), the govrnment does not know the correct 'recipe' to use in the production process. They don't know what combination of machinery, raw materials, labourers, managers, advertising will derive the most marginal product X from their services because they own a monopoly on the business that produces product X and cannot compare with other businesses that produce X because they are effectively driven out of the market. The government could be full of altruistic heaven sent angels and they still wouldn't *know*.

    And this was my point in the other thread about labourers digging up and filling in holes; they might not spend all their time digging up and filling in holes but when there is a central planning agency (a democracy, a constitutional monarchy, some sort of republic, whatever it is) they have limited knowledge what produces what better than what. Technocrats believe that engineers can scientifically determine the most useful projects to man but suffer from a lack of economic knowledge.

    this didnt happen becuase people were stupid, it happened becuase they were rewarded (with profit) for lending.
    And the profit was not rewarded to them by the consumer (now that's true democracy) but by government subsidisation and bail outs.

    In the market, if a banker does a bad job, there are bank runs which destroy his business (if he has deviated away from 100% backed commodity money); in the market, he gets bailed out, the money note:commodity money ratio increases and inflation soars (which is only now possible with Keynesian economics).

    regarding people who took the credit....if they were paid enough in wages to buy the neccessities they wouldnt need to to take credit to pay for neccessaties.
    Wages will boost by entrepeneurial competition and democratisation of capital (which will be generated into the hands of more workers, especially those who delay high wages for long term capital investments), their money (backed by 100% commodity) will be worth more (so they can buy property), banks will only lend them mortgages to buy property they can afford and property prices will remain steady so people will not overestimate the value of their property and spend beyond their means (which happened under New Labour).

    Look up colonial script; not a single man was unemployed, poor or houseless.

    5m on the council house waiting list also creates the ground for the far right to become powerful through arguments such as 'why are english people without a council house yet imiigrants are living in council houses - why arnt we looking after our own. if we kick out the immigrants there will be more houses for us, its simple maths'. but of course if we built homes then that argument would find it hard to resonate among people.
    I agree about New Labour making ground for the far right to voice their opinions but I believe the problem is statist economic policy and the best solution to the housing crisis is liberalised trade.

    The problem with affordable housing in teh private for profit sector is that if you can sell a house for 300k rather than 100k it makes sense. so afforable housing isnt really met by the private sector - perhaps only when the government subsides it. but then why not just fund the whole thing themselves and recieve the rent back from the tenants.
    But you are empirically and analytically wrong! Historically government has never been able to provide cheaper or higher qualitative standards of goods/services than the private sector because they own/fund monopolies on product X which means there is no market to compare with.

    why?
    Because before central banking is effectively legalised counterfeit.

    what?
    The huge problems caused by central planners and authoritarian do-gooders who believe an economy can be controlled/manipulated according to their whims.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Why would I lose any savings twice, both now and in the future?
    I just didn't mean today, it could be at any stage in your life. Should have been or not and.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    I just didn't mean today, it could be at any stage in your life. Should have been or not and.
    You're presenting a false dilemma, though, because it deposit assurance didn't exist, then consumers would have been much more picky with where they put their money and banks would have to be much more transparent with the financial instruments in order to gain consumer deposits, indeed, I'd argue that none of the crisis would have occurred if deposit assurance didn't exist (at least not a banking crisis, we'd have seen a bubble somewhere else which would have had far less far-reaching effects).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    There's nothing inherent in a capitalist economy that would leads to boom and bust cycles, multiple voluntary transactions should not lead to a fluctuating volume of it.

    What does is when there are distortions in the price signal, which cause resources to be pumped into unproductive things, and then that unravels. The key one here being the interest rate channelling investments into unproductive investments, since it's set centrally, rather than by the millions of buyers and sellers of loans.
    what? captialism is about maximising profit. you can maximise profit by cutting wages or else raising the price at a higher rate than wages..... but wages also happen to be the money that people use to buy commodities. thats the contradiction. thats why boom and bust is the same thing as capitalism. what dont u get about that?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    what? captialism is about maximising profit. you can maximise profit by cutting wages or else raising the price at a higher rate than wages..... but wages also happen to be the money that people use to buy commodities. thats the contradiction. thats why boom and bust is the same thing as capitalism. what dont u get about that?
    You've completely forgotten about quantity.

    You don't make more profit by cutting wages or raising the price, necessarily - since if you cut wages, you attract less workers [or demotivate the ones you already have] and can produce less things (and considering fixed costs exist, you generally push your avg. cost up - and thus need a higher price to make the same profit), or if you raise the price you push consumers to substitutes thus reducing your revenue and profit.

    Quantity, if you can produce more stuff for the same inputs (or produce the same amount for less inputs), you make more profit, it's not by cutting wages or increasing prices, and your supposed contradiction is gone (precisely because it's *******s).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    I just didn't mean today, it could be at any stage in your life. Should have been or not and.
    The situation would never arise, under the scenario I propose the state would not guarantee the safety of customer deposits, so banks would not play recklessly with them due to moral hazard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    The bust period is a red herring; focussing our attentions on trying to solve the bust period is a red herring. By austrian economic theory, it is the boom period that causes the entire cycle in the first place.
    capitalism IS boom and bust. There is a boom and that is followed by a boost and so it goes on. are we on the same page?

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Imagine that you have 20 tonnes of bricks which you (incorrectly) calculate will be able to build 7 houses, whereas, in fact they can only build 5 houses. So you proceed to build 7 houses. The first 4 houses will be built successfully (sustainable economic growth). The remaining 3 houses will remain incomplete construction projects (mal-investments into capital/artificial economic growth period); they are useless and the resources which could have been used in the construction of the 5th house are gone. The net result is of one house. You could have built 5 houses but now only have 4. The bust period is now the period after the four houses are built in which the project manager must sacrifice resources he would not have had to to make up for the net loss of one house, had he correctly calculated the profits that could have been derived from the 20 tonnes of bricks in the first place.


    The same is the problem with our economic crises at the moment; too many unsustainable projects were (incorrectly) funded by new labour.


    Because government is a central planning agency who have an endless supply of tax revenue and borrowed money to fund their crazy projects (mal-investments), they don't feel the 'pain' of their decisions like the project manager would in my initial example. Furthermore, they have no calculation mechanism; they do not know what the correct projects are to invest in because they own a monopoly on the project. Since there are no competing agencies for a given service provided by government (or if there are, their ability to compete is highly limited by imposed regulations and uneven grounds for competing - the tax revenues owned by the government), the govrnment does not know the correct 'recipe' to use in the production process. They don't know what combination of machinery, raw materials, labourers, managers, advertising will derive the most marginal product X from their services because they own a monopoly on the business that produces product X and cannot compare with other businesses that produce X because they are effectively driven out of the market. The government could be full of altruistic heaven sent angels and they still wouldn't *know*.

    And this was my point in the other thread about labourers digging up and filling in holes; they might not spend all their time digging up and filling in holes but when there is a central planning agency (a democracy, a constitutional monarchy, some sort of republic, whatever it is) they have limited knowledge what produces what better than what. Technocrats believe that engineers can scientifically determine the most useful projects to man but suffer from a lack of economic knowledge.
    where do you get this from? its gobbledygook. no one knows the perfect combination of labour power and commodities to use and you won't get it exactly right ever. its like chasing one of platos perfect forms - it just won't happen. the best you can do is collectivly plan to the best of your ability.

    i still don't understand your digging and filling holes.....who would ever do that? sub in any other useless example...who would build a house then knock it down...who would plant a crop and the destroy it....the only times i can think of this deliberatly happening are in the 1930s in america where people were starving and crops, animals etc were being destroyed to that prices would rise. its a bonkers thing to do.



    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    And the profit was not rewarded to them by the consumer (now that's true democracy) but by government subsidisation and bail outs.
    yes bailouts etc. but before that....interest payments? and using deposits to garentee inject credit loans knowing that the money will come back to them when it is spent and then deposited back in the bank.


    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    In the market, if a banker does a bad job, there are bank runs which destroy his business (if he has deviated away from 100% backed commodity money); in the market, he gets bailed out, the money note:commodity money ratio increases and inflation soars (which is only now possible with Keynesian economics).
    his business is destroyed and peoples savings!!!! you can't let that happen its just madness. you cant let them get away withit either tho - so you nationalise them and get them under democratic control to be run for peoples need not private profit.



    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Wages will boost by entrepeneurial competition and democratisation of capital (which will be generated into the hands of more workers, especially those who delay high wages for long term capital investments), their money (backed by 100% commodity) will be worth more (so they can buy property), banks will only lend them mortgages to buy property they can afford and property prices will remain steady so people will not overestimate the value of their property and spend beyond their means (which happened under New Labour).
    mortgages will be given to people who can afford them?>>!!! whats stopping them lending out more???!!!!




    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I agree about New Labour making ground for the far right to voice their opinions but I believe the problem is statist economic policy and the best solution to the housing crisis is liberalised trade.
    the problem is lack of housing. build houses and u sort the problem. private companies wont do it if its not profitable - right???!!! but it needs to be done. what is wrong with the state doing it! will reply to other points lata



    But you are empirically and analytically wrong! Historically government has never been able to provide cheaper or higher qualitative standards of goods/services than the private sector because they own/fund monopolies on product X which means there is no market to compare with.



    Because before central banking is effectively legalised counterfeit.



    The huge problems caused by central planners and authoritarian do-gooders who believe an economy can be controlled/manipulated according to their whims.[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting discussion. In my humble opinion I believe it all comes down to the belief by politicians and economists on all sides of the political debate that low inflation is a good thing as opposed to no inflation. Basically we have this obsession with economic growth and believe the best way to achieve this is through low stable inflation.

    It is this obsession that causes the economic cycle of booms and busts. The best way to solve this is to take banking away from government or central banking control.

    Let banks set their own interest rates depending on economic factors as they see fit, not on the whims of politicians.

    And for all the people who complain about bankers, they usually only keep about 8% cash reserves so it wont take too many people to ask for their money back to f**k up the whole system if that is what you wish.

    But honestly ask yourself how better/worse our lives would be without the availability of credit.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.