David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s

[doodab]

I have not said that everything has to be privatised. You have not argued logically any of the points that I have made about benefits. You have simply cited cliches about poverty in order to justify the maintenance of the status quo. The lefties I do not like are the patronising ones who do not give a sh*t about the poor yet they say they do.

Are you actually ******* illiterate? Or just too lazy to actually read? The one thing we actually agree on is that the status quo is undesirable. The main point I've made as regards poverty in this thread is that it shouldn't be the case that a household with two people working should require benefits to make ends meet. I can only assume from your continued belligerence that you consider this state of affairs desirable.

There is no connection between your cliches and a solution to a problem (that you do not even accept exists). The left have'nt a creative bone in their witless bodies. They spend their lives sneering at wealth creation whilst filling their own troughs from the spoils of other people efforts.

See above. Yet again you are arguing with the imaginary leftie monsters that haunt your waking nightmares.

It is the hypocrisy of people like you that I object to that support a system that is patently wrong and that condemns millions to lives of unemployed squalor. The best you can come up with is that because we argue that public services should be of the highest order and that everyone be encouraged to work that we are "smeared" as wishing to privatise everything "for the sake of preserving right wing integrity".

The trouble with most of your arguments for change is that what you are calling for doesn't actually bear up to logical scrutiny. Neither public or private sector can achieve the logically impossible yet anyone who points this out to you is dismissed as a hypocrite. You really do come across as incredibly hard of thinking sometimes.

[Scoobos]

How is competition reduced with lower regulations? Ease of business makes barriers to entry lower and increases competition.

What a lovely textbook quote, which works well in micro economics for small businesses in a mixed economy in the late 20th century. I'm not really sure how valid it is in the UK and US now, how many barriers to entry are there in the UK, We have the EU an open door policy and have a government that believes that increasing GDP is a sign of success.

I personally believe that competition is reduced by aquisition and globalisation. Although we may have many multinationals with subsidiaries I don't believe that they really compete in the way that believers in market forces think. - Do you believe that Lux compete against Dove, or do you think that the smart multinational (unilever) instead pitches different brands at different groups of consumers?

Our food, pharma, media and many other sectors are each slowly becoming "aquisitioned" into single big bohemoths of international, unregulated , faceless multinationals. E.G Unliver for Food, News International for media, Glaxo Smith Kline for pharma.

How does this increase competition, I'm open to "re-education"

[Robinho]

I've made as regards poverty in this thread is that it shouldn't be the case that a household with two people working should require benefits to make ends meet.

This means they are living in too big a house or too nice and area, or are spending too much on beer and food etc. You really can live on absolute pittance in this country.

[Robinho]

What a lovely textbook quote, which works well in micro economics for small businesses in a mixed economy in the late 20th century. I'm not really sure how valid it is in the UK and US now, how many barriers to entry are there in the UK, We have the EU an open door policy and have a government that believes that increasing GDP is a sign of success.

I personally believe that competition is reduced by aquisition and globalisation. Although we may have many multinationals with subsidiaries I don't believe that they really compete in the way that believers in market forces think. - Do you believe that Lux compete against Dove, or do you think that the smart multinational (unilever) instead pitches different brands at different groups of consumers?

Our food, pharma, media and many other sectors are each slowly becoming "aquisitioned" into single big bohemoths of international, unregulated , faceless multinationals. E.G Unliver for Food, News International for media, Glaxo Smith Kline for pharma.

How does this increase competition, I'm open to "re-education"

But if they are being inefficient then a small and agile company should be able to come in and survive. If they are being efficient enough that this can't happen, then it doesn't matter does it?

[DodgyAgent]

What a lovely textbook quote, which works well in micro economics for small businesses in a mixed economy in the late 20th century. I'm not really sure how valid it is in the UK and US now, how many barriers to entry are there in the UK, We have the EU an open door policy and have a government that believes that increasing GDP is a sign of success.

I personally believe that competition is reduced by aquisition and globalisation. Although we may have many multinationals with subsidiaries I don't believe that they really compete in the way that believers in market forces think. - Do you believe that Lux compete against Dove, or do you think that the smart multinational (unilever) instead pitches different brands at different groups of consumers?

Our food, pharma, media and many other sectors are each slowly becoming "aquisitioned" into single big bohemoths of international, unregulated , faceless multinationals. E.G Unliver for Food, News International for media, Glaxo Smith Kline for pharma.

How does this increase competition, I'm open to "re-education"

I have to agree with this. It is impossible for a start up company to compete with these organisations because regulations have been set to control the multi nationals that stick up barriers to new entrants. Having said there is again a neat little side track going on here and that the control of multi nationals is a different argument to the notion of competition in the supply of goods and services.

[Scoobos]

There is no connection between your cliches and a solution to a problem (that you do not even accept exists). The left have'nt a creative bone in their witless bodies. They spend their lives sneering at wealth creation whilst filling their own troughs from the spoils of other people efforts.

That really is some nasty rhetoric , right there... Could come from the mouth of the leader of a totalitarian regime .

"filling their own troughs" really, people who think differently to you are sneering pigs?

[Scoobos]

But if they are being inefficient then a small and agile company should be able to come in and survive. If they are being efficient enough that this can't happen, then it doesn't matter does it?

Microsoft and Google are massively inefficient, as they have grown organically at an uncontrolable rate.

Lets see a "small agile" OS developer come in and take it... Not even with the power of (I believe) some astute and well made EU anti competition regulation, can anyone do this.

The same goes for ALL the multinationals - the govt has to bend over if Vodafone say they want to pay less tax, or get fined less for pollution (just an example).

[doodab]

How is competition reduced with lower regulations? Ease of business makes barriers to entry lower and increases competition. Same with Globalisation, how does increasing the size of the market reduce competition? - it directly gives you more.

In the real economy market failures are rife. Nearly every market of significance has sizeable barriers to entry, often due to the presence of incumbent players, and opening markets to foreign participants often raises them further.

[DodgyAgent]

That really is some nasty rhetoric , right there... Could come from the mouth of the leader of a totalitarian regime .

"filling their own troughs" really, people who think differently to you are sneering pigs?

Show me some examples of creative leftie activities. I will give you an endless stream of examples of left wing people who create nothing except wealth, power and influence for themselves.

[Robinho]

Microsoft and Google are massively inefficient, as they have grown organically at an uncontrolable rate.

Lets see a "small agile" OS developer come in and take it... Not even with the power of (I believe) some astute and well made EU anti competition regulation, can anyone do this.

The same goes for ALL the multinationals - the govt has to bend over if Vodafone say they want to pay less tax, or get fined less for pollution (just an example).

Microsoft and Google are some of the most revolutionary companies of the last 30 years.