Lib Dems prove once again they are not fit to govern

[doodab]

Competition can prevent that.

Most markets require government intervention to ensure competition. Many others are almost competition free simply because it isn't practical to have multiple competitors.

[Mich the Tester]

If he could make more money turning shops into residential building then there is effectively no economic case for a shop(s) in these towns. As such there can be no complaint that there are no shops. People are essentially saying, "i want a shop in my town, but i'm not going to use it enough or pay high enough prices to keep it in business".

You've completely missed the point by a greater distance than I thought possible. The trouble is that there isn't anywhere to spend money because councils have allowed a few large businesses whom they could never afford to take to court to become monopolists or oligopolists, while the national government stand to one side repeating the mantra of 'no economic case' or 'government should not interfere with markets'. It's a false argument because there isn't a 'market'; what was once a 'market' is now an almost soviet like centralised parasite suckking the life out of society.

People DID pay to shop locally, but that was made impossible by monopolists and oligopolists.

[Robinho]

Most markets require government intervention to ensure competition. Many others are almost competition free simply because it isn't practical to have multiple competitors.

I suspect the gov is actually more responsible for creating monopolies than preventing them.

[Mich the Tester]

Competition can prevent that.

So why didn't it stop all the commercial premises in my town ending up in a few private equity companies' hands?

Competition, in this case, led to an oligopoly which killed competition.

[Robinho]

You've completely missed the point by a greater distance than I thought possible. The trouble is that there isn't anywhere to spend money because councils have allowed a few large businesses whom they could never afford to take to court to become monopolists or oligopolists, while the national government stand to one side repeating the mantra of 'no economic case' or 'government should not interfere with markets'. It's a false argument because there isn't a 'market'; what was once a 'market' is now an almost soviet like centralised parasite suckking the life out of society.

People DID pay to shop locally, but that was made impossible by monopolists and oligopolists.

They obviously didn't pay enough though. If the land can make more money with housing than with shops then there is no economic justification for a shop.

The liklihood is that the economic viability of these shops went due to things like the internet, supermarkets and the automobile.

[Mich the Tester]

They obviously didn't pay enough though. If the land can make more money with housing than with shops then there is no economic justification for a shop.

Do you know, some people actually care about other things than money.

Anyway, you feel just fine about monopolies?

[Robinho]

Do you know, some people actually care about other things than money.

Anyway, you feel just fine about monopolies?

Then they should show they care buy paying more money for their products for the convenience of a local shop. If they are not willing to do that, then they can have no complaints that there is no longer a shop.

[Mich the Tester]

Then they should show they care buy paying more money for their products for the convenience of a local shop. If they are not willing to do that, then they can have no complaints that there is no longer a shop.

They did. The shop was killed by a monopolist landlord; do I have to keep repeating myself?

[vetran]

there are small businesses but they are internet based or out of town.Councils failed to save the high street so we have carbon copy big name lined high streets.

its a real pity and financially dangerous for the country as most large companies won't pay uk tax if they can avoid it.

The ebay etc micro businesses won't pay much tax, expenses will swallow most of the profit and they won't be big enough to pay vat.

To make outgoings = incomings are you have a choice. Increase incoming by taxing or decrease outgoings. The Lib dems seem to want to increase outgoings and and then try to increase incomings by raiding the few people who actually pay tax.

taxing property doesn't reflect ability to pay little old ladies out on the streets because their 2 bedroom bungalow is worth £250k.
taxing the rich is likely to fail they can afford better lawyers.

CUT YOUR OUTGOINGS, 6% cuts are not enough.

[Robinho]

They did. The shop was killed by a monopolist landlord; do I have to keep repeating myself?

No it wasn't. It was killed because it was no longer viable. If more money could be made from the shop than the residential building then the "monopolist" would have let the shop stay. But as housing proved more cost effective it won out.