2024, hoodwink and bamboozle the public

[Hoboh]

I suspect I'd be a long way short on your credentials for Chairman, Hobes. Where to start with this blurb. Maybe at the top and work through.

The population increase. We've grown by 10 million in 24 years, whereas the previous 10 million took around 50. So yes a big increase in a short space of time. The bit that I think you're wrong on is the unaffordable bit. It's one of the three ways we show GDP growth - throwing more bodies in, it's not unaffordable, it's a necessity of our current economic model. We might in the future be as large as China, which is going to be a bit cramped. Point is, whether we agree on causes and effects, there is a reasonable conversation to have around at what point we say "we're full" - regardless of ethnic composition. In general outside of internet chatter, the general view is that in the main, immigration adds more to GDP than it takes out. Sure there are cases where it does, they're usually the ones that the RWM cite, with little understanding of any notion of potential economic impacts. Maybe put some of your genius thinking in that direction, and tell us how you're going to staff-up rising health people requirements, what you're replacing the student sector with, etc.

So moving onto point 2, which is in part linked, more people need more housing and the problem of affordability. Wage growth has been pretty stagnant and broadly negative for about as long as I can recall. At the same time company profits continue to increase at a much more healthy rate and commodity costs have increased. The cost (not price) to build a house has increase dramatically as have land values and as noted, company profits in the building sector. It's hardly surprising then, that house prices rise. There isn't a great link between supply and demand at any sort of level the market would deliver that'll make any significant impact. So we have the problem of affordability being the main issue. Stagnant wages, increasing asset value of the property. The problem is not why we aren't building enough, there are plenty of people buying more than one, foreign investment and pension funds who will buy a housing asset as something that will increase in value. This problem is crystal clear all over the housing market. Very few can build a property that the young ones can afford. I've posted on this topic before, so I think we're agreed it's a big problem. Why you think someone left or right of the political spectrum should give away their assets, is more RWM bullshit. It does you no credit. For me the answer would be to try and deliver more not-for-profit, state housing, if necessary CPOing some land to build it on. This would help minimise the cost as a rough metric is the costs of a property are about 1/3 Land, Build, Profit.

As to me and what I do, you may glean what you will. I can only assume you're that dumb, that you deliberately miss all the posts I've made suggesting capitalism isn't generally working, what we need is better capitalism. We know if we just operate free markets then the only economics in play is bubble-up, not trickle down and that unregulated markets (or lightly regulated) cause issues like the global financial crash of 2008 that Mr and Mrs Taxpayer bailed out.

I've never said anywhere I want to rejoin the EU, ever, as far as I can recall, but again here, your MO is to try and put everyone into a little box that has a name badge attached, it helps you get through the day and I'm fine with that mate - it's like you might give someone with ADHD a bit of therapy, so happy to do my part and help you out. I think there is little point saying to a larger trading partner, that we will accept none of your market-wide rules, you're going to play on our terms, Johnny Foreigner. Similarly doing a "Singapore on Thames" isn't going to help most working people, just the few at the top.

Maybe we could hear some of your proposals on the same topics as to how you're going to solve them?

First pont you make is nonsensical, a larger population means you need even more bodies to service it and we are short now so how will that improve things? Growing sustainable GDP means enough money floating around the system, exactly where is the money going to come from? We manufacture next to nothing, rely on mainly financial services for any growth in GDP, more people is not the answer.
Point two, wages are about the only thing companies can exert some sort of control over except in certain circumstances, and if everyone was paid what people think they should be, costs would spiral even more. Let's get to the bottom of the 'stagnant' wages, the thing damaging every company and individual is the cost of energy, to extract raw materials and transport them. Yes, I agree we need more social housing and 3 or more private rental property owners get zero sympathy off me.
Point three, I have nothing against a common market type organisation, but when it starts it's own parliament, making its own laws with ambitions to be the United States of Europe, then no, it needs dismantling.

[BWFC_Insane]

GDP is a measure of output. There is only two ways to increase that. Improve productivity or have more people working.

Our population is ageing. We don’t have enough native British workers to sustain the boomers in their retirement. To work the social care, NHS, factories and transport systems we need. It’s basic mathematics.

If we stop bringing immigrants in we are economically less productive which means less money to go round and we have a huge labour and public service staffing crisis.

[Prufrock]

Ageing population is the biggest "why" on immigration. Along with a few consequentials off the back of that on housing and wages.

[Worthy4England]

I suspect I'd be a long way short on your credentials for Chairman, Hobes. Where to start with this blurb. Maybe at the top and work through.

The population increase. We've grown by 10 million in 24 years, whereas the previous 10 million took around 50. So yes a big increase in a short space of time. The bit that I think you're wrong on is the unaffordable bit. It's one of the three ways we show GDP growth - throwing more bodies in, it's not unaffordable, it's a necessity of our current economic model. We might in the future be as large as China, which is going to be a bit cramped. Point is, whether we agree on causes and effects, there is a reasonable conversation to have around at what point we say "we're full" - regardless of ethnic composition. In general outside of internet chatter, the general view is that in the main, immigration adds more to GDP than it takes out. Sure there are cases where it does, they're usually the ones that the RWM cite, with little understanding of any notion of potential economic impacts. Maybe put some of your genius thinking in that direction, and tell us how you're going to staff-up rising health people requirements, what you're replacing the student sector with, etc.

So moving onto point 2, which is in part linked, more people need more housing and the problem of affordability. Wage growth has been pretty stagnant and broadly negative for about as long as I can recall. At the same time company profits continue to increase at a much more healthy rate and commodity costs have increased. The cost (not price) to build a house has increase dramatically as have land values and as noted, company profits in the building sector. It's hardly surprising then, that house prices rise. There isn't a great link between supply and demand at any sort of level the market would deliver that'll make any significant impact. So we have the problem of affordability being the main issue. Stagnant wages, increasing asset value of the property. The problem is not why we aren't building enough, there are plenty of people buying more than one, foreign investment and pension funds who will buy a housing asset as something that will increase in value. This problem is crystal clear all over the housing market. Very few can build a property that the young ones can afford. I've posted on this topic before, so I think we're agreed it's a big problem. Why you think someone left or right of the political spectrum should give away their assets, is more RWM bullshit. It does you no credit. For me the answer would be to try and deliver more not-for-profit, state housing, if necessary CPOing some land to build it on. This would help minimise the cost as a rough metric is the costs of a property are about 1/3 Land, Build, Profit.

As to me and what I do, you may glean what you will. I can only assume you're that dumb, that you deliberately miss all the posts I've made suggesting capitalism isn't generally working, what we need is better capitalism. We know if we just operate free markets then the only economics in play is bubble-up, not trickle down and that unregulated markets (or lightly regulated) cause issues like the global financial crash of 2008 that Mr and Mrs Taxpayer bailed out.

I've never said anywhere I want to rejoin the EU, ever, as far as I can recall, but again here, your MO is to try and put everyone into a little box that has a name badge attached, it helps you get through the day and I'm fine with that mate - it's like you might give someone with ADHD a bit of therapy, so happy to do my part and help you out. I think there is little point saying to a larger trading partner, that we will accept none of your market-wide rules, you're going to play on our terms, Johnny Foreigner. Similarly doing a "Singapore on Thames" isn't going to help most working people, just the few at the top.

Maybe we could hear some of your proposals on the same topics as to how you're going to solve them?

First pont you make is nonsensical, a larger population means you need even more bodies to service it and we are short now so how will that improve things? Growing sustainable GDP means enough money floating around the system, exactly where is the money going to come from? We manufacture next to nothing, rely on mainly financial services for any growth in GDP, more people is not the answer.
Point two, wages are about the only thing companies can exert some sort of control over except in certain circumstances, and if everyone was paid what people think they should be, costs would spiral even more. Let's get to the bottom of the 'stagnant' wages, the thing damaging every company and individual is the cost of energy, to extract raw materials and transport them. Yes, I agree we need more social housing and 3 or more private rental property owners get zero sympathy off me.
Point three, I have nothing against a common market type organisation, but when it starts it's own parliament, making its own laws with ambitions to be the United States of Europe, then no, it needs dismantling.

Point is a long way from nonsensical (but I might be getting an inkling why you can never trust scientists - The demographic is aging and we're currently carrying a shedload of economically inactive - these are not all "scroungers" nor "immigrants" and as those bits get larger in proportion, you need to be able to support them. They're not moving in the same proportions - that's a problem.

Our GDP growth is largely driven by labour flexibility, volume of economically active people and R&D improvements - we agree there's not enough coming from that last bit - the other two are still pretty labour intensive and the fact that there isn't much coming from the last bit means more needs to come from the other two.

I doubt anyone (certainly not me), is suggesting everyone get's paid what they think they're worth. So onto the "bottom of stagnant wages." Maybe you could explain why business profits are growing about 10% per annum over the long term - after all these additionally burdensome costs (since way before the "energy crisis"), yet they peg wages at 2% - typically lower than inflation. At the same time big businesses have been so fcuking cash rich they've been buying their own shares back, to supress profits. Clearly, as with the "people thing" - there is plenty of variability in this statement and I'd like us to shift the balance from big business benefits to small/medium ones.

We agree on social housing, we disagree on how many houses individuals should be able to own to rent out - 3 seems a strange number in addition to someone's regular house, then there's holiday lets, AirB&B's etc. this market segment is fooked. The more people need to cough in rent, the more they need paying - this isn''t an "improvement equation" this is a "just to stand still" equation. Do you happen to own three rental properties perchance?

Last bit, nearly agree, I was only ever worried about the trading relationship...Whether others want the parliament shouldn't be my pick, we're not in it - they should be able to do what they want, including dismantling it if that's what they vote for.