saintfully

The largest cost?

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, my (basic) understanding is that money is supposed to conveniently represent value. When a central bank creates it, it is able to do so because it has been granted the authority (explicitly or otherwise) to do so on the basis that it has an accurate understanding/measure of value within/of the state. Since the gold standard was replaced by fiat money, I would argue that all states have allowed themselves to drift away from this simple reality. Hence the creation of debt that cannot be re-paid. Solution? First we need to decide what we want our societies to look like, then we can devise a system that enables it to happen. The alternative, of trying to recognise the 'rules' by which economies operate and then to match society to it, is, in my view, somewhat defeatist. But then I'm a scientist, so what do I know?

Appreciated.

Just to get this off my chest re. 'council houses'... ...how is it better that we are currently propping up bankrupt banks by ensuring that Buy-to-let entrepreneurs don't go bust - which means that our taxes go on paying an over-inflated housing benefit bill? Personally I would prefer social housing that we own, so the money we pay in taxes for housing benefit improves the value of our assets. Instead, we pay loads for cr.appy housing, have no rights to it, and our taxes get spent on the next sh.itty BMW, exported by our German cousins and so loved by fu.ckwit landlords.

It is certainly true that most people have been able to pay their mortgage - but arguably that is only because of the incredibly low interest rates banks are being allowed to borrow at. Clearly mortgage payers are subsidising banks to a degree. I'm afraid I don't buy the idea (Pap?) that we need to have a collapse in house prices either - the whole 'creative destruction' process loved by the neoliberals should be applied to business, not homeowners. My belief is that the only way the current model can be sustained/rebooted is via the inflation approach the govt is taking. My disagreement is how it is being implemented. I would prefer printed money to be going into state infrastructure spending rather than failing businesses via failed banks. Specifically I would like to see small scale but widepsread social-housing projects. The govt have taken a useful step in relaxing planning laws - this seems an opportunity to take advantage of this. BTW, to be clear, having said all that I don't think the current system should be sustained for the long term - but changing to a more socialised system now would be a disaster - watch greece in the next two years.

The fact remains that whichever UK party is/was in power is largely irrelevant when considering current global capitalism - wouldn't you agree? The issue is actually the system itself which, as you have said, is presently socialising losses, whilst transferring wealth to the top. Can't we all agree that this, at least, is wrong and not what either Lab or Con citizens have in mind when imagining an effective way to run an economy?? Its not even controversial to say that now, is it???

Well duh, we agree then.

Agree. Funnily enough, was discussing our performance at 2010 last week - no-one could still quite believe just how bad we were. Thinking about it now still makes me shudder. Utter, utter disaster.

You haven't noticed how much money has been wasted saving capitalist banks then?

Just a figment of the imagination...

Rhyming slang?

Don't say 'amazeballs' when Jacks around (whoever the fu.ck he is??) - apparently only girls say it. Amazeballs!

This. In Brighton alone I can think of 6 vinyl record shops off the top of my head - actually make that 9.

Screamadelica

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - someone should send this post to Alanis Morissette.

No-one was suggesting 'no such fiscal consolidation programme' - just a slower speed. I note that she is also suggesting VAT cuts and more QE - so its not exactly a ringing endorsement of Plan A - more like an acknowledgement of a need for Plan B. Quite a change from the IMF position of last year, confirming that they don't know what the fu.ck to do about the problem.... like the rest of us. Until demand can be sustainably re-introduced into the economy the recession/flat-lining will continue. See graph above. Its not about party politics, its about a complete overhaul of the present system - still capitalist.

Dyer getting a new contract = amazeballs. That is all.

Amazeballs.

Its 16th for me, finishing above West Brom or Wigan (disasterous manager choice likely/Martinez to go), Reading (found out), Narch or Swansea (one will implode - not sure which) and 'a big name' (maybe Fulham, maybe Wham - I'd like Stoke to finally fu.ck off cause hate the way they play, but can't see it unfortunately).

Numbers 8 and 10 seem to contradict eachother somewhat. Women eh!!!

Its probably just 'ghost ear'. Get it exorcised and the evil spirit will fly away and leave you in peace. HTH.

Definately possible. Interesting to see where that leaves France though - head of a complementary 'Southern Block'? Re. Trousers question of where Hollande gets the money from? Answer is Eurobonds to fund EZ-wide infrastructure spending; already given tacit approval by IMF and Merkel has accepted need for increased spending to stimulate growth. Also, EZ has a zero debt level overall, so plenty of room for manouvre if the Germans accept it. Their choice is Euro and spending or no Euro.

Great post. I think momentum is important in the prem and that we went down when we lost it after our FA Cup triumph against lowly Aresnal (we did win it didn't we?). I hope this time that we'll see the continued investment that maintains upward thrust - right up to Champs League??? Also, seems to me that buying the right personalities is almost as important as the right talent so am glad that so far we've not bought any massive egos.

Indeed. The level of (soft) corruption in the UK (and probably most other countries?) is shocking when it becomes apparent. I guess until you see it, then it is hard to imagine just how much power and influence entrenched wealth possesses compared to how little the rest of us do. Fact is, there is an elite and it wants to make sure it stays that way.

Ha, sorry, didn't want to imply that I didn't believe what you wrote - just wondered if you'd give the names thats all. If you don't ask you don't get etc. Whats the charity? (Can't blame me for trying). As it happens I've every sympathy with what you're saying and simply don't understand people who reject rigorous efforts to combat inherited wealth. If you want a meritocracy its a no-brainer as far as I can see.