Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:39 pm  

The worst of it is that it doesn't even need to cost us a penny in real terms.
Spend £1bn in a massive project to build affordable housing and then sell them AT COST over time as they become available.
The government get their money back, Builders and any trade connected get a massive boost, more disposable income floods the system and first time buyers get the those houses they cannot afford right now.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:58 am  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

The worst of it is that it doesn't even need to cost us a penny in real terms.

The idea that Cod'ead touted back on page 6 won't cost one penny to the government and public AT ALL, ever.

Other than releasing land that some public office accountant has valued at full retail cost, it just needs approaching from a public ownership point of view, we obtained this land for nothing, its doing nothing, we have a problem, the land provides the solution, all we have to do is get the accountant to change the numbers in his book and pin a little note to it to explain to future generations why the fictitious asset suddenly lost a lot of fictitious value overnight.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:52 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

The idea that Cod'ead touted back on page 6 won't cost one penny to the government and public AT ALL, ever.

Other than releasing land that some public office accountant has valued at full retail cost, it just needs approaching from a public ownership point of view, we obtained this land for nothing, its doing nothing, we have a problem, the land provides the solution, all we have to do is get the accountant to change the numbers in his book and pin a little note to it to explain to future generations why the fictitious asset suddenly lost a lot of fictitious value overnight.

Oh I'm not saying Cod'ead is wrong because he isn't (TBH I was replying to the OP and didn't see the rest of the thread until after) but in either case building homes is the simplest way out.
You could actually run the 2 schemes side by side and then buying or renting in an affordable way becomes a reality.

Edit-My plan would obviously require using the same land that Cod'ead was talking about.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:07 am  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Oh I'm not saying Cod'ead is wrong because he isn't (TBH I was replying to the OP and didn't see the rest of the thread until after) but in either case building homes is the simplest way out.
You could actually run the 2 schemes side by side and then buying or renting in an affordable way becomes a reality.

The prtoblem with buying in your scenario is that for many, it creates little more than wage slaves, who will accept working under any conditions, prooviding they can meet the mortgage at the end of the month. It will also lead to yet another house-value bubble as was evidenced in the 1980s with right-to-buy. I'd contend that before we build more homes to be bought at a subsidised value, we should readjust the mindset that there really is nothing wrong with renting. It worked perfectly well for decades before right-to-buy was introduced and there's absolutely no reason it cannot work again

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:08 am  

Another piece on Gidiot's failure

Another piece on Gidiot's failure

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:21 am  

Especially for Ajw71 and samwire:

Colin Talbot ‏@colinrtalbot

Myths about our recent fiscal history: No. 1 Labour spent lots. Prior to global financial crisis Lab never went above 43% GDP, the 50 yr av.

Myths about our recent fiscal history: No. 2. Our deficit before Global Financial Crisis was high: never went above 3% GDP, which was low.

Myths about our recent fiscal history: No. 3: we were in unsubstainable debt before GFC: wrong, we never went above 40% of GDP was not high

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:28 am  

cod'ead wrote:

The prtoblem with buying in your scenario is that for many, it creates little more than wage slaves, who will accept working under any conditions, prooviding they can meet the mortgage at the end of the month. It will also lead to yet another house-value bubble as was evidenced in the 1980s with right-to-buy. I'd contend that before we build more homes to be bought at a subsidised value, we should readjust the mindset that there really is nothing wrong with renting. It worked perfectly well for decades before right-to-buy was introduced and there's absolutely no reason it cannot work again

Fair points but I was talking about flooding the market with houses at cost housing whilst not touching social housing (which was Half the problem with right to buy as the balance was shifted with not a lot of extra properties built to restock social housing).
If you then add that to your plan then there will be a real change as a house will be worth it's material cost and not what some estate agent 'thinks' its worth.
As a knock on effect you would destroy private landlords stranglehold as well as seeing current housing stock prices drop in line with the new stock all IMHO obviously.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:13 am  

cod'ead wrote: Another piece on Gidiot's failure The problem is of course that ideology gets in the way of government, in recent decades we've seem flavours of government that on the surface have been very similar, in decades prior to those (the ones that you and I recall) there was a very real difference between voting Labour or voting Conservative - poles apart. Yet still there is the underlying ideology that splits the parties - socialism vs "light" government, I'll call it Republican government because its modelled on the American Republican theories but with a slightly different upper tier, the Tories will never call it a Republic because in this country that means dispatching the Queen to The Tower, but in everything else the fiscal theories are the same - the public do not need a government to care for them from cradle to grave, they need more of their own money to stay in their pockets so that they can make the decisions that government should be making for them, how do I pay for my retirement in 40 years time, how will I care for myself when I'm 80 years old and struggling to cope, how will I pay for my wife to give birth, who do I call now I've broken my leg in the park and I haven't made the insurance premiums these last three months because of the overtime cuts ? Standing behind the two grinning idiots who currently front up the Tories are the policy makers and their policies are based on the Republican model of light government, of "personal freedom of choice" and of the old chestnut "market forces", so they don't really have to do anything at all about recessions, depressions and social crisis, "the market" will sort it out eventually and in the meantime here's five years in which to pare the social government model down into the preferable light government model and pretend that its not really their fault at all. Then all you have to do is to convince people that its not their fault at all and they need to keep taking the medicine beyond 2015 - the posturing and maneuvering that will take place in the run up to that election will be hilarious.

cod'ead wrote: Another piece on Gidiot's failure The problem is of course that ideology gets in the way of government, in recent decades we've seem flavours of government that on the surface have been very similar, in decades prior to those (the ones that you and I recall) there was a very real difference between voting Labour or voting Conservative - poles apart. Yet still there is the underlying ideology that splits the parties - socialism vs "light" government, I'll call it Republican government because its modelled on the American Republican theories but with a slightly different upper tier, the Tories will never call it a Republic because in this country that means dispatching the Queen to The Tower, but in everything else the fiscal theories are the same - the public do not need a government to care for them from cradle to grave, they need more of their own money to stay in their pockets so that they can make the decisions that government should be making for them, how do I pay for my retirement in 40 years time, how will I care for myself when I'm 80 years old and struggling to cope, how will I pay for my wife to give birth, who do I call now I've broken my leg in the park and I haven't made the insurance premiums these last three months because of the overtime cuts ? Standing behind the two grinning idiots who currently front up the Tories are the policy makers and their policies are based on the Republican model of light government, of "personal freedom of choice" and of the old chestnut "market forces", so they don't really have to do anything at all about recessions, depressions and social crisis, "the market" will sort it out eventually and in the meantime here's five years in which to pare the social government model down into the preferable light government model and pretend that its not really their fault at all. Then all you have to do is to convince people that its not their fault at all and they need to keep taking the medicine beyond 2015 - the posturing and maneuvering that will take place in the run up to that election will be hilarious.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:43 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

<snip>

Still no response to these facts from Ajw71 and samwire?

How very odd.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:14 am  

''Once you realise that trickle-down economics does not work, you will see the excessive tax cuts for the rick as what they are - a simple upward redistribution of income, rather than a way to make all of us richer, as we were told.''

Ha-Joon Chang -: 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism.