Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    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.
    this is where unemployment comes in handy.....if you freeze pay and the staff get demotivated you can fire them and get someone in who has been unemployed for 6 months and who is so desperate to pay off the bills they will be motivated to work for the wage that the pervious employer was not. thats simple right. so theres no lack of motivation or attracting workers problem.

    rising prices you are pretty much spot on. Lets say train prices. they have gone up whilst wages have not gone up in a proportional sense. people will either have to lump it (in the main they will) but at a point - they will simply not travel. that fuels the problem of demand. its the problem with capitalism

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    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).
    how? perhaps with a more efficient machine that creates more than a worker thus making some workers redundant and so lowering your wage bill? if u keep producing more and more for the same cost then eventually u have the problem of overproduction? u produce so much that ur warehouses are full and people cant buy all of what u produce.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    this is where unemployment comes in handy.....if you freeze pay and the staff get demotivated you can fire them and get someone in who has been unemployed for 6 months and who is so desperate to pay off the bills they will be motivated to work for the wage that the pervious employer was not. thats simple right. so theres no lack of motivation or attracting workers problem.
    But if it's boom and bust, there's usually the problem of labour shortages during the boom period, so this makes no sense.

    Furthermore, it's when wages are too high for the economic environment that you get unemployment, unemployment is a consequence of the price in the labour market being too high, it's not that falling wages cause busts, but they are a consequence of them.

    rising prices you are pretty much spot on. Lets say train prices. they have gone up whilst wages have not gone up in a proportional sense. people will either have to lump it (in the main they will) but at a point - they will simply not travel. that fuels the problem of demand. its the problem with capitalism
    So, as I was saying - you can't just increase profits by raising prices, as you seemed to intimate in your original, misguided 'explanation' of capitalism.

    how? perhaps with a more efficient machine that creates more than a worker thus making some workers redundant and so lowering your wage bill? if u keep producing more and more for the same cost then eventually u have the problem of overproduction? u produce so much that ur warehouses are full and people cant buy all of what u produce.
    Yes, the only way to increase profits from where you are (unless you're already under or over producing) is to become more productive, that is to hire better workers, to train your workers better, to motivate your workers better, to improve the technology that workers use, to reduce wasted time and so forth. You can't magically increase profits by cutting wages or increasing prices as they both have effects on quantity either produced or sold which cancel out those supposed gains.

    You have a very limited understanding of how price, revenues, quantity and costs interact, and your understanding is akin to that of a small child - 'but if they cut wages, they'll make more money'; it's simplistic and, ultimately, not true, or else you would never see any wages above the government-mandated minimum, but we do. Why, if companies could merely make more by cutting wages?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    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?

    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.
    I advise you re-read my post. The actor cannot achieve perfect calculation in the free market but at least there is a market for comparison. The government has no market for comparison under socialism and it matters not whether it is a democracy or what we have now.

    i still don't understand your digging and filling holes.....who would ever do that?
    I'm not saying they would do that. I am saying that the actor would not be able to know the nature of his *prize* without being able to compare the mode of production with other modes used in the market. Economic co-ordination (most efficient mode of production) is incentivised and guided by profit and profit is measured by price mechanism.

    The situation is a bit like paying someone to fill in and dig up holes whenever you try to objectively determine the 'common good'. Basically when you have an exchange between two parties they both benefit at the time of the exchange, if they didn't then they wouldn't make the exchange; we say they both subjectively value the benefits made from the exchange.

    What if I get government to fund ice creams for everybody! By what objective evaluation do I come to the conclusion that ice cream is going to be in everybody's interests?

    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.
    That is because the currency we use is mandatory. All interest payments are subsequently mandatory. Currency is regulated by a clueless government rather than the trade of the world. The currency we used is not backed by wealth (a large proportion is legalised counterfeit printed) and we have no choice in that because the government has decided for us what currency we are to use.

    his business is destroyed and peoples savings!!!!
    The damage is minimal (since in a complex economy it is not long before businesses recognise that there is an increase in money supply, therefore more money being printed) so not many people lose savings and people who do lose savings can sue for insurance (since it would be madness to sign up to a bank without insurance). Bank runs are good. The only people who lose out are the crafty buggers who try and print counterfeit.

    Your alternative is referred to as the 'externalisation of costs' (in reference to a situation whereby costs are forcefully transferred onto an unwilling third party) by economists. If a banker makes a bad decision (and the people who deposit their money are also making a bad decision by the way), there are negative consequences for which there are costs associated which someone must pay. Your alternative is to externalise those costs onto the tax payer, since bail outs are funded by tax revenues.

    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.
    Right. And then the government majority can simply print as much money as they like to fund wars and crazy levels of public spending, inflation soars through the roof and we have a situation like Zimbabwe.

    You will probably say something like, 'oh but its democracy they wouldn't do that' to which I refer you back to my point about calculation. Plus, people have crazy, unworkable ideas that will get voted in.

    The private party who has a crazy idea must fund that idea using his own money (risks are all his and if he fails, his capital is dissipated into the market and placed into more skilled hands) whereas a republic/democracy have an endless supply of tax revenues to fund their every whim.

    Democracy is tyranny of the majority.

    mortgages will be given to people who can afford them?>>!!! whats stopping them lending out more???!!!!
    A competing currency system can only lend out their profits (made through interest) which will be significantly less than the endless supply of printed money the central bank of england has its money grubbing paws on. If they print money no backed by gold, then bank runs are whats stopping them.

    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!
    I hate to sound like some sort of social darwinist but if it is not profitable, then it is not worth building them; attempting to build them anyway is highly unsustainable in the long run. If the government tries to organise construction then we have housing bubbles. Plus, for the government to organise their construction signifies a redistribution of capital from the hands of skilled market entities. This is true of all taxation; you are taking wealth from the hands of people who have earned that wealth (and therefore know how to handle it) and referring that wealth into the hands of Mr ??? in the hope that Mr ??? will be able to do a better job with that wealth.

    (Original post by badtothebone)
    this is where unemployment comes in handy.....if you freeze pay and the staff get demotivated you can fire them and get someone in who has been unemployed for 6 months and who is so desperate to pay off the bills they will be motivated to work for the wage that the pervious employer was not. thats simple right. so theres no lack of motivation or attracting workers problem
    Ok, for one thing there are always going to be ********s that you work with or for.

    Which is precisely why you should be free to not work with/for those ********s and seek employment in a place where the manager treats all his staff and consumers fairly and equally.

    It makes no sense to say I am against exploitation therefore everyone should work for the government! Then to justify your statements, you say that the government should be 'more democratic'; more people should have a say in the lives of other people. Instead of working for ********s in westminster, we all get to work for the ******** majority. There's no choice. No freedom of workplace relocation. Inevitably under socialism a central planning agency determines what work you must do according to your intelligence.

    Now that's what I call exploitation.

    Lets take your very own example of an employer freezing pay, firing staff unjustly and employing the unemployed boogeyman. In the market, a firm is well within its rights to do all the above. But it might just lose market reputation. Which means that workers are going to be going through their unions (which can be good things) for advice as well asking for references of any given employer. If he is not trustworthy, he is not worth working for. That employer doesn't get any staff.

    Under socialism, you get the choice of working for government run monopoly A or government run monopoly B.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Congestion and carbon emissions are sorted by either the privatisation of roads & a carbon/fuel tax
    How would privatising the roads sort congestion and carbon emissions? Road transport is hugely price inelastic - the private company running the roads would have to charge WELL in excess of the current road tax (I'm talking 10 times more) in order to actually price people off the roads. This might work - but surely a more acceptable option would be to provide accessible and affordable public transport which can complete with the private car whilst still allowing those who need to to afford cars.

    So what you're saying is, you think that it is acceptable for rural communites to have a bad/non-existant bus service because they enjoy other benefits, and then you're also saying that you're going to price people off the roads in order to reduce congestion. It doesn't sound like living in the countryside will be much fun under your system!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Especially without loads of incredibly tight health and safety regulations, bus suppliers would find it far cheaper to operate/manufacture more buses.
    Would you be willing to sacrifice safety for political idelogy? Bear in mind that a bus when incorrectly operated has the potential to cause a HUGE amount of collateral damage to innocent bystanders.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The gains from privatisation are only really seen when you can genuinely bring in competition.

    A lot of the time privatisation just means rival private firms compete for the right to being awarded monopoly provision of a public service. The end user doesn't have that much 'choice' they just pay the mark up the private provider pays.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFatController)
    How would privatising the roads sort congestion and carbon emissions? Road transport is hugely price inelastic - the private company running the roads would have to charge WELL in excess of the current road tax (I'm talking 10 times more) in order to actually price people off the roads. This might work - but surely a more acceptable option would be to provide accessible and affordable public transport which can complete with the private car whilst still allowing those who need to to afford cars.

    So what you're saying is, you think that it is acceptable for rural communites to have a bad/non-existant bus service because they enjoy other benefits, and then you're also saying that you're going to price people off the roads in order to reduce congestion. It doesn't sound like living in the countryside will be much fun under your system!
    Actually, what I'm saying is that if you privatised roads then road companies would charge a price to maximise profit. This would be such that it was at the level of the externality imposed on other road users, plus costs for upkeep. It would solve congestion in that those who did the congesting paid for it, not that roads wouldn't be congested (although you'd expect to see road space adjusting much more to demand, and to see roads in a much better state with regards potholes etc.) It's not about pricing people off the roads, it's about trying to internalise the externality (which fuel duty attempts to do, but punishes rural users far more, since they use fuel at the same rate but impose much less congestion - so it'd be beneficial for rural car users).

    Try not to misrepresent my position, thanks.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    The gains from privatisation are only really seen when you can genuinely bring in competition.

    A lot of the time privatisation just means rival private firms compete for the right to being awarded monopoly provision of a public service. The end user doesn't have that much 'choice' they just pay the mark up the private provider pays.
    I agree, with a caveat. Your point is easily illustrated with rail, where we see granted monopolies on routes leading to high prices.

    However, it's not a case of 'bringing in' competition, it's more of a case of not legislating against it, as happens in nearly all markets with a multitude of red tape, regulation, and other consumer or employee protections which are far more easily absorbed by big businesses and cause a barrier to entering the market or remaining in it as a small business. We consistently see the state causing monopolies, be it on purpose (as with rail) or by accident.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Actually, what I'm saying is that if you privatised roads then road companies would charge a price to maximise profit. This would be such that it was at the level of the externality imposed on other road users, plus costs for upkeep. It would solve congestion in that those who did the congesting paid for it, not that roads wouldn't be congested (although you'd expect to see road space adjusting much more to demand, and to see roads in a much better state with regards potholes etc.) It's not about pricing people off the roads, it's about trying to internalise the externality (which fuel duty attempts to do, but punishes rural users far more, since they use fuel at the same rate but impose much less congestion - so it'd be beneficial for rural car users).

    Try not to misrepresent my position, thanks.
    Your points are very, very sound in terms of economic theory. The problem is that getting the people who cause congestion to pay for it doesn't solve congestion (unless you are speaking purely in economic theory terms) - it just punishes them for causing it. The problem is that pure economic theory is not always the way to set government policy, because it focuses on market equilibrium and not necessarily what is best for the country.

    Also, you say that it would be beneficial for rural car users - but we've already established that in this free market system there wouldn't necessarily be rural bus services. Couldn't road companies recognise that effectively cars are the only way to travel around remote areas, and impose horrendous fees to use them? I presume a society with such a free market system would not have measures in place to prevent monopolies or cartels from emerging, because this would be 'interventionalist'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFatController)
    Would you be willing to sacrifice safety for political idelogy? Bear in mind that a bus when incorrectly operated has the potential to cause a HUGE amount of collateral damage to innocent bystanders.
    A punitive retribution system + financial reparations + private licensing (certification for the knowledge of consumers) will solve the issue of criminal negligence. I'd say that firms would compete to provide better services although that would suggest extensive prior knowledge on behalf of the consumer; still it will help. I think goods and services would be much safer in a free society.

    I'd risk/sacrifice anything for a free society, though given the fundamentally immoral institution that is the state.

    My question to you would be; if men are not trusted to govern themselves, then who is trusted to govern men? God? The church? Other men?

    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I agree, with a caveat. Your point is easily illustrated with rail, where we see granted monopolies on routes leading to high prices.
    There is still substitution, though - buses, taxis, etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Assets should be state-owned but services should be privately-managed to allow competition, which drives innovation, improvement etc.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nationalisation should happen slowly, so as to allow the economy to gradually adapt to it.

    I think things like food products, clothes industries, cosmetics, media, electronic and toy industries etc... shouldn't really be nationalised, but the nationalisation of Banks and Oil companies would be of huge benefit to the public.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You wouldn't privatise food or clothing industries? How are poor people supposed to eat and clothe themselves then?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    So TSR what is your opinoin on state ownership? Do you think it is not needed and all business/services should be privatized? Health/education ect.

    Or should the government have control of certain services as they are so important to the public interest?

    Personally I have been thinking Education and health should be owned by the state. And I have been thinking about whether transport should be government controlled.

    Your thoughts?
    Same, I do believe that education and health shouldn't be privatised, but then again certain parts should as they aren't running efficiently enough. And the education has its issue especially the crap schools where all the disruptive kids end up going.

    But for economic factors everything else should be privatised.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    A punitive retribution system + financial reparations + private licensing (certification for the knowledge of consumers) will solve the issue of criminal negligence. I'd say that firms would compete to provide better services although that would suggest extensive prior knowledge on behalf of the consumer; still it will help. I think goods and services would be much safer in a free society.

    I'd risk/sacrifice anything for a free society, though given the fundamentally immoral institution that is the state.

    My question to you would be; if men are not trusted to govern themselves, then who is trusted to govern men? God? The church? Other men?
    I think the private licensing idea is an intersting one - I think your personal ideal for an economy would effectively be the internet, but IRL. The internet has various private certificate operators for web security etc. Thing is though - the threat of going to prison (or, in countries such as China, death) for criminal negligence hasn't stopped it from happening entirely - I don't see how market forces will have any impact upon it at all.

    My comment on your question to me would be "That's a $64,000,000 question!". My personal belief is that men are perfectly capable of governing themselves - the problem is that this could result in a 'law of the jungle', where the vulnerable in society are neglected and unable to fend for themselves. Your system would rely on everyone being 'a decent chap' in order to avoid acts of selfishness and cruelty.

    The benefit of having a government is that is does implement checks and balances which, on the whole, lead to a government which acts broadly in the best interests of the people (I'm talking very broadly - please don't pick me up by saying "OMG TUITION FEES" or the like). The problem with having no government is that the only thing that holds society together is the power of markets. I see nothing that would prevent people like international mafias and drug barons from legitimately coming to dominate society under a completely free market system.

    There will always be leaders in society, whether it's a tribal leader, democratically elected leader, or any other leader. I think that your system has far too much potential for criminals and mafia to fill this role, and it removes any obligation that the person(s) in this role might have to society as a whole. Your ideology centres around market theory, which works on averages and the principles of ceteris paribus in analysis - it doesn't take into account the fact that some people are sociopaths, and some are complete nutters.

    It's obvious that we aren't going to agree - the basic principle at stake here is whether you think a government is necessary, or whether you have enough faith in humanity to be willing to risk a stateless system. Personally, I think the risk of social chaos is too great a price to pay for complete freedom. You value complete individual freedom more highly than I do and see the risk of social chaos as less of an issue, so you'd be willing to pay the price.

    I think we can both agree that we are unlikely to ever see an entirely stateless system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheFatController)
    I think the private licensing idea is an intersting one - I think your personal ideal for an economy would effectively be the internet, but IRL. The internet has various private certificate operators for web security etc. Thing is though - the threat of going to prison (or, in countries such as China, death) for criminal negligence hasn't stopped it from happening entirely - I don't see how market forces will have any impact upon it at all.
    All those countries use a utilitarian justice system. I'm talking about a pure individualist approach. Also try not to conflate private licensing with individualist punitive retribution; the retribution is first and foremost about making the victim of a crime feel whole again. It is only of secondary importance to punish actions in the hope that will provide incentive not to repeat such offences.

    The state often fails to regulate firms anyway. The market regulates itself when left to it. control =/= regulation.

    My personal belief is that men are perfectly capable of governing themselves - the problem is that this could result in a 'law of the jungle', where the vulnerable in society are neglected and unable to fend for themselves. Your system would rely on everyone being 'a decent chap' in order to avoid acts of selfishness and cruelty.
    That's like saying, well if the government stopped providing shoes for everyone tommorow, everyone would have to physically manufacture their own shoes (i.e. is there no market for shoes). The same is true for security (which I believe should be a commodity sold on the market). In the free market, you can pay reasonably cheap insurance for private security, so the physically weak and vulnerable do not have to defend themselves by their own sheer brute force. Check out Somali Xeer on wikipedia if you get the chance.

    Anyway, that wasn't to do with my initial question. My question in essence was, if men are so imperfect (which they certainly are imperfect, now don't get me wrong) why are they to be trusted wielding the power of a monopoly on coercion?

    The benefit of having a government is that is does implement checks and balances which, on the whole, lead to a government which acts broadly in the best interests of the people (I'm talking very broadly - please don't pick me up by saying "OMG TUITION FEES" or the like). The problem with having no government is that the only thing that holds society together is the power of markets. I see nothing that would prevent people like international mafias and drug barons from legitimately coming to dominate society under a completely free market system.
    The black market is an interesting one because individuals in the black market have no effective way of settling their disputes.

    For instance, if I were to get into debt, borrowing £2k worth of crack cocaine from Johnny K, Johnny K might decide to use violence or the threat of violence against me when I failed to pay it back on time. In that case, I may wish to go to the police/law courts and charge him with assault but the act of purchasing drugs is illegal in the UK, so I stand no ground.

    There is no efficient private dispute resolution organisation (DRO) because all DROs are illegalised; only the state claims right as being the ultimate DRO in all circumstances of crime. Furthermore, to declare a DRO would be to openly publicise the drug trade which would effectively give the government the right to crack down upon the drug trade (which is illegal), so that's not going to happen.

    Are you starting to see why so much crime happens in the black market?

    You can take another circumstance, whereby a gang of drug dealers (henceforth Gang A) declare a (illegal) monopoly on, say heroin. Anyone else who sells heroin in a given area will get the **** beaten out of them. Again, there was no DRO and no state to take your case to because it is not legally permissable to sell heroin in the first place; this means that Gang A find it easier to use violence against other gangs (and get away with it) and there's no competition so they can sell their stuff way above the market price and at really, really bad quality.

    It's obvious that we aren't going to agree - the basic principle at stake here is whether you think a government is necessary, or whether you have enough faith in humanity to be willing to risk a stateless system. Personally, I think the risk of social chaos is too great a price to pay for complete freedom. You value complete individual freedom more highly than I do and see the risk of social chaos as less of an issue, so you'd be willing to pay the price.
    Well I can bang on about private security, DROs all day but at the end of the day if you think society is best organised by violence, then there is nothing else I can say.

    You are free to assign leader/leaders to yourself but not to choose leaders for other people. This is why I am ethically opposed to voting; I cannot see what right man has to wield political power over other men.

    I think we can both agree that we are unlikely to ever see an entirely stateless system.
    My concern isn't with some distant utopian goal but the fact that the state is legalised theft and violence every step of the way now. It can't do anything without harming someone else. Who knows what anarchy would look like. But who cares given the insiduous nature of tyranny and authoritarianism; the state is legalised violence. To justify the state is to simply justify institutionalised violence. Individuals have the right to retalliate against any form of violence under anarchy (whether it be with their own brute force or by employing a defence agency); you have no such right under the state.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    There is still substitution, though - buses, taxis, etc.
    Not really comparable is it though?
    Buses are generally more inconvenient, more costly and take longer.
    Taxis are miles more expensive and aren't suited to anything but short journeys.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Not really comparable is it though?
    Buses are generally more inconvenient, more costly and take longer.
    Taxis are miles more expensive and aren't suited to anything but short journeys.
    There are plenty of other substitutions as well, including personal transport, tram and so forth. If a rail wants to start charging ridiculously high prices then the option is always there for people to use a different service. In some ways, I think buses are more convenient since they stop at wider plurality of locations, meaning less walking distance depending on where you live and there are more places you can go as well (whereas with train there are less places you can stop).

    Despite inconvenience in certain situations (I'd rather get on the train to travel longer, more direct routes for instance) the option is still there for people to use those services (and they would, if pushed), so keeping the trains under thumb. Substitutes aren't the same but I'd still rather private competition than government monopoly.

    That said, I think personal transport acts as an effective substitution, since you can stop where you like and petroleum companies would take all the business away from the trains (which are fueled by a different form of petrol, I believe).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    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.
    To me remote means far away from other places, or difficult to get to. Wells certainly doesn't fall into those categories.
    Also, I'd say a population of 10,000 is more like town than a village
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I agree, with a caveat. Your point is easily illustrated with rail, where we see granted monopolies on routes leading to high prices.

    However, it's not a case of 'bringing in' competition, it's more of a case of not legislating against it, as happens in nearly all markets with a multitude of red tape, regulation, and other consumer or employee protections which are far more easily absorbed by big businesses and cause a barrier to entering the market or remaining in it as a small business. We consistently see the state causing monopolies, be it on purpose (as with rail) or by accident.
    Well the nature of many public services is that the barriers to entry are too high.

    Nobody is going to build a rival railway so its either grant monopoly rights to running a certain route or you have nightmarish co-ordination problems.

    A lot of public services have a high minimum efficient scale which means they are naturally more efficiently provided as a monopoly, in general I always prefer state provision in that case, there's no reason a private monopoly will be any more efficient than a state monopoly, and you can at least run a state monopoly as a profit neutral enterprise, ie channelling all the profits back in to investment in the service.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.