Big Tabs
looking backwards, going forwards
Erm. Is that not a contradiction?
That is what I thought.
The fantasy of making more via the stock market only rings true if the correct investments were made.
Erm. Is that not a contradiction?
What? Nonsense, there's currently about 1.38 million claiming Jobseekers/Universal Credit but that's a totally false indication of how many people are unemployed, the real no is about 3.5 million.
Not sure that the vagaries of human demand consumption are natural and even less that borrowing is the driver of problematic inflation. Likewise to say that absence of recessions are the driver of inflation seems to be putting the cart before the horse somewhat. Recessions are the product of inflation, not the other way around.
Besides, we happily live with inflation based on borrowing when it suits us, notably when it comes to housing. House price inflation causes periodic economic turbulence for those unable to service their borrowing, but the easy remedies to resolve that turbulence by stabilising house prices are unacceptable to the self interest of those who profit from ever increasing house prices and betting on periodic turbulence
While self interest is a part of the human condition, it isn’t a necessary part, self interest is not what defines the human condition, other things like altruism to name but one play their part too. So I would argue that self interest and greed are not the necessary defining condition of being human, and are not therefore natural in the proper sense of the word.
To an eye watering 0.5%. Not really going to tackle inflation is it.
What are those 2.1M doing, are they financially independent? People I talk to can’t get staff.
No, but two back to back does send a signal...
Not arguing against too much of that except that using borrowing to impoverish poor people and enrich the rich, is not "natural'', it's political.What's self interest/altruism got to do with it? I'm just saying that recessions are when people (and businesses) have to reduce expenditure because their income isn't enough to pay back what they've borrowed.
If governments attempt to prevent recessions by enabling more borrowing, you just get higher asset prices, which help the haves with surplus assets and harm the have-nots with no assets.
Say the have-nots eventually can't afford to eat due to high cost of rents vs wages etc. and the government gives them free food money. All that happens is that the price of the food increases. So then you have to take other measures, such as introducing controls on the price of food — you end up in a planned economy. Or you allow wages to rise and we enter a wage-price spiral. All because recessions have become politically unacceptable.
A 0.5% base rate certainly sends a signal at current inflation rates, that they won’t go up very much. Recessions are banned remember, particularly when the govt has a colossal debt to service.
I can see housing in desirable areas of the south up another 10% this year. Rest of the country not so sure. Fixed rate money is so cheap.
Why are these people not presenting themselves at the food factories where I work? That's not one factory, region, or even one employer. It's nationwide.What? Nonsense, there's currently about 1.38 million claiming Jobseekers/Universal Credit but that's a totally false indication of how many people are unemployed, the real no is about 3.5 million.
Hmmm. Methinks you are not up to speed with investing? Calculations were based on the portfolios that I have held over the same period.That is what I thought.
The fantasy of making more via the stock market only rings true if the correct investments were made.
I don't have any figures but there will be a percentage on other benefits which are not considered 'Jobseekers' , things like DLA, Incapacity benefit, etc, the government have been doing this for decades to cover up their incompetence in running the country and swindle the general public into thinking jobs are plenty , then they are those who if are out of work are not entitled too ANY benefit due to their personal savings or the earnings of their wife/ husband or partner. I would fall into this latter category if not working.
IME those who cannot 'get staff' or have a high turnover of staff is indicative of poor wages/salary , poor conditions or they're just a c××t to work for.
https://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/news/real-level-unemployment-almost-35million-new-report
Hmmm. Methinks you are not up to speed with investing? Calculations were based on the portfolios that I have held over the same period.
You may not be aware but over time its possible to average around 7% return p.a. (I'm discussing investing and not dealing/gambling!) Of course there were times when the portfolios dived and other times when they excelled but over time 7% is close. Now what does that mean in practice? It means that my portfolio doubled in value every 10 years i.e. exponential growth. For example invest £100K and after 10 years its £200K and after 20 years its £400K and 30 years £800k - exponential growth. Even if you only average 5% p.a. the same rules apply and you double the value every 14 years but you'd still reach £800K after 42 years. Thats why I encourage my children to invest now whilst they are young.
Here is an exercise to try. At the birth of a child you stick £1K into a tax free wrapper for them. What might be the value when that person is 70 years old and ready to retire? Of course its true value in todays money will depend also on the inflation rate over said period.
DV
Why are these people not presenting themselves at the food factories where I work? That's not one factory, region, or even one employer. It's nationwide.
I don't agree. That way just breeds resentment from people who save then have to use their savings up, against 'feckless' people who don't/can't accumulate the savings and rely on the state for support. And people save for all sorts of reasons, buying a house, weddings, holidays, cars, kids' education, helping the kids with a deposit. Why should that be taken away from them? State support should be universal, or it is by nature discriminatory.generally, benefits shouldn’t be given to households who have savings, they are supposed to be a safety net to help those without resources back on their feet, no problem with that.
No. The natural rate of employment' is Monetarist construct. It is a construct propagated by a particular narrow political viewpoint. It is not a universal truth. It's not even a truth acknowledged outside the Tory mindsetThere is always going to be a natural rate of unemployment for various reasons, we all understand that.
As for staff shortages, it’s across the board from the people I speak to, from cafe owners and retailers to lawyers to contractors on £1K a day. Shortages everywhere yet apparently we have high unemployment. Doesn’t stack up.
There is always going to be a natural rate of unemployment for various reasons, we all understand that. There will always be exceptions but generally, benefits shouldn’t be given to households who have savings, they are supposed to be a safety net to help those without resources back on their feet, no problem with that. As for staff shortages, it’s across the board from the people I speak to, from cafe owners and retailers to lawyers to contractors on £1K a day. Shortages everywhere yet apparently we have high unemployment. Doesn’t stack up.
I don't agree. That way just breeds resentment from people who save then have to use their savings up, against 'feckless' people who don't/can't accumulate the savings and rely on the state for support. And people save for all sorts of reasons, buying a house, weddings, holidays, cars, kids' education, helping the kids with a deposit. Why should that be taken away from them? State support should be universal, or it is by nature discriminatory.