Lib Dems prove once again they are not fit to govern

[Robinho]

Erm, no you weren't. If you had been you might have used terms such as "normal profit" or "opportunity cost" rather than simply stating that the branch was unprofitable, which anyone with a degree of sense takes to mean not making a profit.

As if you'd know what i meant if i had said normal profits anyway.

You stated that you could "run the equations" then back pedalled like a unicyclist on a treadmill when challenged to do so, denying that any such equations existed.

The dynamics are simple. Somebody loses their job because the business they work for ineffective and is being out competed. As such these people retrain, and can offer a different service which is paid for with the money freed up from people using a more cost effective business.

You waffled about basic economics while seemingly being unable to comprehend how a monopoly in one market can distort another which depends on it,

I have already explained clearly how there is no monopoly affect here because the supply of housing is extremely inelastic and as such landlord price what the market can bare anyway. Nobody has been able to counter this claim yet.

"sound money systems" without actually explaining how such a thing would work.

Well you've never asked actually. Sound money system ie, a fixed money supply and full reserve banking. At the minute we have a system designed for boom and bust.

[Robinho]

Another case of looking but not understanding. That figure is simply income after taxes. It doesn't take into account all of the things those taxes pay for in Germany that have to be paid for in the US, such as healthcare and university educations.

Do you know what PPP is?

Please note, these figures are PPP.

[doodab]

Do you know what PPP is?

Please note, these figures are PPP.

Yes thanks.

As I said, those figures don't take into account the fact that university education is free in Germany, nor the fact that most people pay for healthcare via the tax system. Also pensions and various other insurances.

[Robinho]

Yes thanks.

As I said, those figures don't take into account the fact that university education is free in Germany, nor the fact that most people pay for healthcare via the tax system. Also pensions and various other insurances.

Can you show me where it goes into detail about these things?

A lot of Americans get healthcare with their jobs too. It's not clear to me whether this has been factored in the details of this, but if you've seen something which i haven't you should be able to point this out to me.

Otherwise you'll have to accept that everything in this quote is simply an unsubstantiated assertion.

[sasguru]

Germany has an enormous debt too, 2 trillion Euros, comparable to the US's per capita. Americans also have roughly 6,000 dollars more disposable income than Germany (source List of countries by per capita personal income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) so it's hard to claim Germans have a better quality of life.

The US has considerably more rail per capita
Railways total (per capita) statistics - Countries compared - NationMaster

Considerably more airports per capita
Airports (per capita) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Considerably more road per capita
List of OECD countries by road network size - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure which infrastructure you had in mind but it's not looking like Germany has better infrastructure.

You clearly have not travelled to any extent in either country.
There may be "more" infrastructure in the US but the quality is considerably less. In some areas the infrastructure in the US is more like that of a 3rd world country.
You also seem to have some problem with basic arithmetic.
If Germany's debt is 2 trillion, as you claim, that is one tenth of the US with a quarter of the populaton. So not the same per capita.
Also remember that all that is after Germany incorporated a whole bust country within itself and is now going to bail out Europe (if thatidea has any chance of succeeding)

Welcome to the free market

[Robinho]

You clearly have not travelled to any extent in either country.
There may be "more" infrastructure in the US but the quality is considerably less. In some areas the infrastructure in the US is more like that of a 3rd world country.
You also seem to have some problem with basic arithmetic.
If Germany's debt is 2 trillion, as you claim, that is one tenth of the US with a quarter of the populaton. So not the same per capita.
Also remember that all that is after Germany incorporated a whole bust country within itself and is now going to bail out Europe (if thatidea has any chance of succeeding)

Welcome to the free market

There seems to be a lot of different figures.

But at external debt...

List of Gross External Debt by Country | Economics Blog

and government debt...

List of National Debt by Country | Economics Blog

Germany is "winning" in both categories.

I appreciate there are a lot of conflicting figures so i will look at any other you can find. Most lists with both countries on show that Germany has a higher level of debt per capita.

As for your assessment of the US's transport. I have travelled all over the US so i am well acquainted with the transport network there. The air services are perfectly good. Obviously passenger train is uncompetitive in America due to the distances. Rail freight in America is a sight to behold though. 42% of freight is carried by rail vs 22% in Germany.

Rail usage statistics by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Town transport is tulip, but it is a country built around the car which suits me fine.

[Robinho]

Actually a lot of figures are showing Germany at about 80% of GDP and US 100%.

Still, similar ballpark.

[doodab]

Can you show me where it goes into detail about these things?

It's Wikipedia. If you click the heading where it says "disposable" it explains what disposable income is.

It's worth noting that the data in that wikipedia list comes from a variety of sources, at source it's all various national statistic bureaux.

In Germany that means this lot : https://www.destatis.de/DE/Startseite.html

The "net household income" component of disposable income is defined here: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigu...oldIncome.html

The household net income is calculated by subtracting income tax, church tax, solidarity surcharge and compulsory social security contributions (contributions to unemployment insurance, statutory pension insurance and statutory health and long-term care insurances) from the gross income of the household.

The US figures are based on something called the BEA personal income. They define disposable income thus (taken from http://www.bls.gov/bls/fesacp1061104.pdf)

Personal income is calculated as the sum of wage and salary disbursements,
employer contributions for employee pension and insurance funds, proprietors’ income,
property income (personal interest, dividend and rental income), and transfer payments to
individuals, less personal contributions for social insurance.
Disposable personal income is personal income less personal tax payments

So in Germany healthcare and state pension is paid for out of taxes (aside from the small excess on health insurance), while in the US BEA figures an employers healthcare and pension contributions count as income, so those sums increase the disposable income figure and part of that is spent on healthcare and pensions.

Also in Germany education is paid for out of tax and no part of the disposable income figure is spent on it, in the US the average debt from attending college is around $23,000 and it's paid back out of disposable income.

Hence my assertion that the figures aren't exactly comparable.

[Robinho]

Ok, still i believe health insurance is in the ballpark of 3-4k. And 23k over a lifetime is about 600$ a year. So that still doesn't close the 6k discrepancy. Not a great comparison i agree but the US does look ahead.

[doodab]

As if you'd know what i meant if i had said normal profits anyway.

Well, it would probably have worked out better if you had said that and risked me having to use google rather than spouting a load of utter tulipbiscuits, but each to their own.

The dynamics are simple. Somebody loses their job because the business they work for ineffective and is being out competed. As such these people retrain, and can offer a different service which is paid for with the money freed up from people using a more cost effective business.

Should be simple to write an equation down then shouldn't it.

I have already explained clearly how there is no monopoly affect here because the supply of housing is extremely inelastic and as such landlord price what the market can bare anyway. Nobody has been able to counter this claim yet.

You haven't "explained clearly" you've merely stated it as fact and it doesn't follow that because the housing supply is inelastic that there is no monopoly effect, that is just wishful thinking.

Well you've never asked actually.

Because someone else asked before me.

Sound money system ie, a fixed money supply and full reserve banking. At the minute we have a system designed for boom and bust.

Right, and can you explain why that's "sound" and how that would actually work in practice?