Lib Dems prove once again they are not fit to govern

[Mich the Tester]

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.

More cost effective for whom?

Bloody hell, two people end up on the dole (paid for by all of us), a house is bought which is now probably worth a lot less than was paid for it, the shops have gone, council taxes for households have gone up because there are no revenues from council tax for business, and you are trying to tell me that 'housing proved more cost effective'.

[Scoobos]

I did a degree in Economics , and the very first thing my Economics A Level teacher informed me is:

"Economists CANNOT care about humanity, you can't care about people, you need to be hard , you need to think in terms of rationing resources to people with unlimited wants".

So by that mantra, you can't expect economists to do anything that benefits people or culture, unless it results in more money generation.

I think that's probably right, put a big marketing machine behind it and a lack of government intervention and you have destroyed micro economies

[Robinho]

More cost effective for whom?

Bloody hell, two people end up on the dole (paid for by all of us), a house is bought which is now probably worth a lot less than was paid for it, the shops have gone, council taxes for households have gone up because there are no revenues from council tax for business, and you are trying to tell me that 'housing proved more cost effective'.

The two on the dole can get another job.
If the council was charging more for the shop than the house then it's there own dumb fault they made it unviable.

The market spoke, there were winners and losers but society benefited as a whole, because it got that little bit more efficient. It might be hard to see how, but if you run the equations it does work out, trust me.

[doodab]

The market spoke, there were winners and losers but society benefited as a whole, because it got that little bit more efficient. It might be hard to see how, but if you run the equations it does work out, trust me.

Why don't you "run the equations" and prove it? Give us some numbers.

I think you could equally well argue that this is a market failure and society as a whole lost out when externalities are factored in.

[Robinho]

Why don't you "run the equations" and prove it? Give us some numbers.

The shopping needs of the town are now cheaper going to Tesco's or whatever they have out there.

Somebody got a flat.

The people who had a job can retrain in a new job that exploits the money freed up from people shopping at Tesco's.

Obviously it is hard to demonstrate on a micro level but on a macro-level those are the basic dynamics.

[Mich the Tester]

The two on the dole can get another job.
If the council was charging more for the shop than the house then it's there own dumb fault they made it unviable.

The market spoke, there were winners and losers but society benefited as a whole, because it got that little bit more efficient. It might be hard to see how, but if you run the equations it does work out, trust me.

Run the equations? Are these equations written by the same poeple as the equations that cancelled out risk in the financial markets?

Anyway, society may have benefitted financially as a whole, if your idea of 'as a whole' includes one person becoming a multi millionaire and everyone else becoming a bit poorer, but 'society' is about more than a bit more or less money here or there.

As for trusting the equations of financial experts, erm, no thanks; I've done that before and won't make that mistake again.

[Scoobos]

I don't think it does Rob.

Here's some of the arguments I've heard over the past 2 months from the tory / capitalist side:

1. People can move to where the work is

(puts no value on society, family values or friendship at all - you should just uproot and leave your mother and uproot your children - both parents work to pay for a house outside of your area , somehow magically get 2500 average bond + 1st months rent when you are unemployed and try claw it back working in the leisure or service industry "like the immigrants")

2. Increased GDP equates to standard of living

(it really doesnt when you have multinationals with shareholders who don't even reside in the country)

3. Businesses collapse because people don't pay enough for the goods, or support the shops

(Massive corporations bend the will of governments to remove barriers to them exploiting land resource, and are not subject to the same taxation rules (e.g tesco, vodafone etc etc) - so they pay far less tax).

4. Competition results in lower prices and better quality.

(this is a key principle in the economics I learnt, and unfortunately I don't think its proven to be the case - what seems to have happened is that massive multinationals buy their competition up, but continue to run them as seperate businesses in some kind of fake competitive way).

5. Unemployed people in decimated micro economies can "get another job"

With no capital, no cash injections (gvt intervention, funding etc) and no businesses - who's the employer? The answer is often they can start their own business , but that is not a skill most have and neither is it viable for people just to spawn millions of silly companies.

I believe if you follow these values you end up with a country with 1 massive (perhaps 2 interjoined) cultureless cities surrounded by wasteland and wasted history.

You're tesco anology shows that - the money leaks from the micro economy into the pockets of the Tesco shareholders ONLY .. this is parasitic and damaging to the communities it invades.

My 2 cents, but I reckon 50% of the above is probably right and the other 50% driven by my personal bias.

[vetran]

The two on the dole can get another job.

Maybe but that job may well not exist as unskilled jobs are rarer.

If the council was charging more for the shop than the house then it's there own dumb fault they made it unviable

.

totally agree

The market spoke, there were winners and losers but society benefited as a whole, because it got that little bit more efficient. It might be hard to see how, but if you run the equations it does work out, trust me.

in a closed system that would make sense but wealth is now international.

[Robinho]

Housing supply is very inelastic and thus every land owner will push the price to the limits of what the market can bear. You can't really create a monopoly on it unless you manage to own the whole country.

But that guy is just going to spend his millions (if he does make millions) anyway which will create jobs elsewhere.

Incidently i am in favour of the little tax we do need to take to keep the country functioning coming from land value. As land supply is perfectly inelastic, taxation on it does not distort the market.

[Mich the Tester]

The shopping needs of the town are now cheaper going to Tesco's or whatever they have out there.

Somebody got a flat.

The people who had a job can retrain in a new job that exploits the money freed up from people shopping at Tesco's.

Obviously it is hard to demonstrate on a micro level but on a macro-level those are the basic dynamics.

No they are not. They might be able to buy crappy tasteless veg at a lower price, but it doesn't cost less. They have to drive to the supermarket, while paying road tax and fuel duty tto get there. The supermarket sells them food produced in huge subsidized bio-industry farms, containing antibiotics that may well be a serious threat to health (which isn't a problem because the taxpayer will pick up the bill for people to get medical treatment).

'Somebody got a flat'. Yes, and negative equity to go with it.