Lib Dems prove once again they are not fit to govern

[Robinho]

Because there are lots of walkers, fell runners and cyclists who go there so they can make money out of them selling them food, first aid stuff and clothing for their activity.

Yes they are going to build a huge frekking Tesco's in the middle of nowhere. Brilliant.

SAS like myself and a few others are pointing out to you that there are no free markets in the majority of the world regardless of what political ideology the country follows.

Ok you're telling me there aren't pure anarchist free markets. Good for you. But why are you telling me this? When did i say there was a completely free market. There are certainly freer and less free markets. Hong Kong and Singpore are generally considered the freest economies - interestingly they are also the wealthiest nations in their region. America isn't anywhere near as free as it once was or should be given their constitution. It is still one of the freer countries though.

All you and SAS are doing is nitpicking at everything i say or raising strawman arguments in a hope that you'll catch me out.

You still haven't told me why i should re-read Mitch's post too. I wonder why?

[Robinho]

And i did say i'd respond to this earlier when i had more time....

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")

It's really your own choice what you do, if you put a lot of weight in family values then don't move or take your family with you, but accept less job opportunities.

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)

I don't put a lot of value in GDP, the government wasting a load of money on a pointless project or something will count towards GDP for example. Disposable income PPP is better to look at. For example Norway has a huge GDP but the average purchasing power of a citizen is lower than people in the UK.

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).)

Well that's crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. I don't support favouritism towards companies, the same rules should apply to all.

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).

Big profits attract competition, if somebody is inflating prices in such a way and making big profits, then entrepreneurs will invest in that industry and exploit the gap in the market. Realistically these companies effectively compete anyway even if they are owned by the same parent company.

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.

This is why you need to get rid of the minimum wage. It essentially blocks the self righting mechanism of the labour market. If the supply of jobs is low in a town, with no minimum wage companies that set up there will benefit from cheap labour at first, but wages will slowly be driven up to parity with the increase in jobs moving to a town. With no minimum wage, that mechanism is lost.

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.

Supermarket competition keeps the prices in check so the saving in part go to the consumer too. After all if no savings were made, people wouldn't go to Tescos in the first place.

[DodgyAgent]

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.

The cliches are back in full force. perhaps you could explain the answers to these so called victims of capitalism.
What for example are the rest of society supposed to do about "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")

What exactly does all this mean?

That the rest of us are responsible for giving these people a living?
does it mean that you actually give a sh*t about these people?

[doodab]

What for example are the rest of society supposed to do about "[I]puts no value on society, family values.....

Pick up the pieces in terms lower educational acheivement, poorer health and higher crime?

[Mich the Tester]

Ok you're telling me there aren't pure anarchist free markets. Good for you. But why are you telling me this? When did i say there was a completely free market. There are certainly freer and less free markets. Hong Kong and Singpore are generally considered the freest economies - interestingly they are also the wealthiest nations in their region. America isn't anywhere near as free as it once was or should be given their constitution. It is still one of the freer countries though.

If there aren't any free markets then you have little evidence on which to base claims that free markets are the best option.

As for 'Hong Kong and Singpore are generally considered the freest economies - interestingly they are also the wealthiest nations in their region', well, Norway, Australia and Canada are generally considered to be pretty healthy economies and very pleasant places to live, even though their economies are relatively regulated. Cuba's economy is heavily regulated and it's a basket case. Somaliland has no real regulation because it basically doesn't have a government; it's a bloody mess and nobody wants to live there, witnessed by the number of refugees leaving the place. Also, I've put the 'in their region' in bold text; it's quite possible that what works in Singapore and Hong Kong (and it's debateable how well it works given other variables that determine quality of life) doesn't work in some other region. America; yes, relatively 'free' in economic terms, and pretty nearly bust. So I'd suggest that 'economic freedom' is one of a number of determinants of wealth (which is only one determinant of general good cheer and satisfaction), and its importance should not be over or underestimated.

What you are doing is extrapolating all sorts of conclusions from economic theories (Austrian school) which are internally consistent and useful for understanding some of the world's disparities in financial wealth, but you seem to ignore empirical evidence that suggests that those theories don't explain everything and don't seem to provide the answers everywhere. That's not science; that's religion.

If you're really going to understand what's going on and what needs to be done about it you'll need to accept that no particular school of economics has got all the answers to current economic problems, and that any economic theory will have to exist in a wider context where other disciplines like sociology, geography, psychology, biology and the arts will influence the choices people and governments make. Maybe it's economically good sense (for some people) to build a supermarket and an airport in a national park. Maybe it isn't. But it might be a sociological disaster to take away from people something which nobody knows how to value in financial terms and nobody really wants to value in financial terms. It might also cause an eccological disaster, but let's not get into that because there are probably a few loons on this site who really think the environment doesn't exist or affect humans.

[Gibbon]

I wish I knew how to predict which threads would become successful. I expected this one to get half a dozen replies. Others I expect to be really popular get a couple of replies.

cuk can be so confusing.....

Apply that to economics and you have answered most of the points raised in this thread.

I think SAS, MTT, Rob et al have been using this thread to practice talking tulipe as a warm up for the autumn conferences.

[Mich the Tester]

I think SAS, MTT, Rob et al have been using this thread to practice talking tulipe as a warm up for the autumn conferences.

Oh thanks a bunch

[Gibbon]

Oh thanks a bunch

You're most welcome

Cover blown now!

[vetran]

if you read the original post the office had changed hands, probably dirt cheap as part of the old boys estate. The purchaser probably got his mate on the planning team to approve change of use, This then changes a long term investment of commercial property into residential providing a short term profit.

They didn't buy it to own a commercial property they wanted to asset strip, get rid of the sitting tenant, change to residential, sell - Kerching!!!

The developer probably has done hundreds of similar deals. The problem is that the council granted change of use.

[Scoobos]

Why is it that when someone supports something that actually works (free market capitalism) that the lefties jump out of the closet and spin it into a "worse possible scenario" in order to trash the concept.
Free market capitalism is the most effective way for human beings to live without fighting wars or living in abject poverty (socialism does that)
Why dont the left (most of who are direct beneficiaries of free market capitalism) accept that capitalism is good but the challenge is to make it work for everyone.

No, a mixed economy is.

You might not realise , as you live in a cushy little right wing world , with your butler (if you are going to generalise I will) but many many countries are at war right now, and mostly over resources.