Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

IGNORED

Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come.


DurhamBorn

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, kibuc said:

There's a difference between socialism and social democracy. Social benefits as you describe can be overlaid on top of a free-market capitalist economy, and indeed have to be implemented as such as they are massively expensive and the funding needs to come from somewhere. If you want to run a welfare state..

We are running a wealfare state and it’s fooked.. 

£32 billion working tax credits

£27 billion housing benefits

It’s not the side of socialism Iike.. I have never agreed with people having kids for free housing and benefits.. But I do agree with affordable housing. I also think state run essential services are a must.. With most of our sold off infrastructure going to tax dodgers it’s not reinvesting in society as the money drips out of the system and the people are made poorer by higher prices.. 

The privatisation of rented housing is to my mind the biggest drain on the state! And a massive disaster waiting to happen.. 

As everyone who is spending their wages on rented accommodation will need benefits when they retire as the landlord took all their money! 

They will have to go on benefits, having bought 3 houses in rent but never owned one!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
21 minutes ago, Thorn said:

I don’t think it’s confused at all.

Winners win. Losers fail.

isn’t that capitalism?

 

Not when the losers keep getting free money from the central banks.. They privatise the profits then socialise the losses, when they inevitably collapse having asset stripped the business and Squirrelled the money to Monaco..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that most of the capitalist vs socialist examples do not contain the true capitalism on the capitalist side or the true socialism on the socialist side.

I think the extent of corruption is more important than the ideology. Corrupt socialism? The population is fucked.  Corrupt capitalism?  The same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bear Hug said:

I would like to point out that most of the capitalist vs socialist examples do not contain the true capitalism on the capitalist side or the true socialism on the socialist side.

I think the extent of corruption is more important than the ideology. Corrupt socialism? The population is fucked.  Corrupt capitalism?  The same. 

A mix of both is good but without the corruption.. Did you see the big pharma investigation? 

Big pharma was paying back handers, They paid people large payments to make speeches at events.. just like our politicians do.. 

The speeches were just cover for the payments to the individual to lobby them into pushing through addictive opioid drugs.. 

I have often wondered who would pay Bozo £50k to make a speech.. I’m guessing this sort of thing could be common to our politicians.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, macca said:

A mix of both is good but without the corruption.. Did you see the big pharma investigation? 

Big pharma was paying back handers, They paid people large payments to make speeches at events.. just like our politicians do.. 

The speeches were just cover for the payments to the individual to lobby them into pushing through addictive opioid drugs.. 

I have often wondered who would pay Bozo £50k to make a speech.. I’m guessing this sort of thing could be common to our politicians.. 

Not seen it. I assume this is about US?  They pretty much screwed up their education, health service and prisons, and we are trying very hard to follow the lead.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bear Hug said:

I would like to point out that most of the capitalist vs socialist examples do not contain the true capitalism on the capitalist side or the true socialism on the socialist side.

I think the extent of corruption is more important than the ideology. Corrupt socialism? The population is fucked.  Corrupt capitalism?  The same. 

Excellent point. Book recommendation: The Myth of Capitalism by Jonathan Tepper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/01/2019 at 11:36, Democorruptcy said:

Did you see the Hugo Chavez documentary this week? Jeremy Corbyn was there with him. It's here on BBC iPlayer

Yes I saw the Chavez documentary - really interesting. At the time he was with JC all was well in Venezuela, his socialist utopia seemed to be able to move mountains on the way to the ideal society.

Of course that's not the case now, as the money that should have been re invested into the countries cash cow (the oil reserves and infrastructure) was redistributed to everyone else but with nothing coming out of the other end in terms of productivity. They are still trying to do that with half the production of ten years ago, as the ageing infrastructure fails and reduces output. The model now looks like the soviet union on steroids!

What is sad is that Chavez wanted to do the right things for the poor in his society, of that I have no doubt. I think JC wants to do the right thing also, but his nationalisation model will fail as taxpayers prop up protected and increasingly inefficient industries.

What would have happened if Scargill had beaten Thatcher in the UK coal disputes with the National Union of Mine workers, what would we be doing with all that coal?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democorruptcy
10 hours ago, sleepwello'nights said:

Yes that's the theory. The Central Banks at the request of Governments wouldn't let capitalism take its course. We have a hybrid system in the developed west currently where capitalism has been corrupted, in the interests of the majority. TBH I don't know enough about political or economic theory to be able to give more in depth explanation of how what we have now is not pure capitalism and whether the changes are preferable to pure capitalism. I think they are.  

Is "majority" a typo? Should that be minority or the 1%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sleepwello'nights
4 minutes ago, Democorruptcy said:

Is "majority" a typo? Should that be minority or the 1%?

It was played as a remedy to assist the majority, although I take your point that QE mainly benefitted the 1%. 

Things like mortgage assistance stopped forced sales and the mortgaged owners didn't lose their homes. If the course that was taken in the 90s recession was taken interest rates would have been raised, economic activity would be subdued jobs lost and ,many home owners unable to pay their mortgages would have lost their homes. Prices would have dropped and those who sold to rent would have realised a profit. 

It didn't turn out that way, as we know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

It was played as a remedy to assist the majority, although I take your point that QE mainly benefitted the 1%. 

Things like mortgage assistance stopped forced sales and the mortgaged owners didn't lose their homes. If the course that was taken in the 90s recession was taken interest rates would have been raised, economic activity would be subdued jobs lost and ,many home owners unable to pay their mortgages would have lost their homes. Prices would have dropped and those who sold to rent would have realised a profit. 

It didn't turn out that way, as we know. 

Yes, that is what should have happened! That recession in many ways helped the poor who had nothing anyway. If they could get into work amongst all the unemployment they may have been able to buy a cheaper house or afford cheaper rent. We have bypassed that whole cycle (well so far....)

Recessions cleanse the system, but we skipped one. I believe the majority are worse off as they have had ten years of wage growth below inflation, and zero interest on capital savings. That is why I think we have had no productivity increases since the GFC, as the majority have had to pay all that QE (or the effects of it!)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, macca said:

“Help to save” has arrived funded by Tax payers..

The economy is PROP tastic.. 

So not Richard Branson 🤔

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8236774/low-income-pocket-1200-government-scheme/

A4031FD9-BC86-4E6E-8A2E-7F4A78151CA2.jpeg

Single person on £15k pays tax to fund someone on £30k on tax credits.Its more insane messing about.The truth is benefits are so high now most people never build any capital because there is no point.Houses used to be the way it was done for the working working class,but now in many areas of the country that has been removed.

Of course you could argue its not much different than giving someone 40% as pension tax relief.The government would be far better scrapping that and lifting it to 25% or 30% for everyone.Even the first line is telling "save for a holiday" so again its saying that the government no longer see benefits as breadline until back on feet.They are now a living.

The only really sane way for people who actually work these days is to go down the FIRE route,or something similar an use ISAs and SIPPs to ensure you dont pay income tax towards  things.Iv got 3 years NI for a full record and at that point (if not before) il never pay NI or Income tax again.If i wanted an income boost for any reason it would be only a enough hours to get to any threshold.

Whats also telling though is that its likely the government now want to find other ways rather than lifting the tax free allowance up.Its in a range now where people can live fine within the tax free limit.Thats a good thing,but not if more and more people decide to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DoINeedOne said:

Miners are having a rough day today

I hope that remains for a while yet as id very much like to keep adding 100% of my salary to silver miners until they run.I think silver at $23 to $26 is the minimum it will reach within 24 months.By 2028 i fully expect the $190 area to be the minimum price,the maximum $900+.That seems insane,but we will only know then and thats what likely liquidity profiles and past charting of silver cycles to liquidity point to.Within two years once the first target is hit as it will be the miners will compound the increase and 200%+ increases in many of the stocks likely.

We are in the very early stages of a hugely powerful and longer term lasting advance.It doesnt feel like that right now,and it shouldnt,but it will in time.

I should add,im not a chartist,but i think once silver gets back above $16 then that is likely when it will start to trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the mrs pays into that help to save jive, it looked ok on paper to be honest for her because she never earned enough to live, i always bailing her out, but she's got a better job now that pays better and to be honest im glad shes doing it because she hadnt a clue and was feckless, was running since last year but was a bugger to find and start, ill have to ask her if she managed to do it and kept up with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NogintheNog said:

What is sad is that Chavez wanted to do the right things for the poor in his society, of that I have no doubt. I think JC wants to do the right thing also, but his nationalisation model will fail as taxpayers prop up protected and increasingly inefficient industries.

What would have happened if Scargill had beaten Thatcher in the UK coal disputes with the National Union of Mine workers, what would we be doing with all that coal?  

The UK taxpayer is currently propping up hopelessly inefficient private rail companies, bus companies, water companies, electricity companies, home builders and building services contractors either through direct govt grants or lucrative corporate tax cuts, while at the same time being relentlessly gouged year-on-year for services that are often sub-par and which at times would disgrace the Third World.

Privatisation serves the interests of Big Money; public ownership serves everyone. Indeed, as Enron demonstrated heroically, there physical reasons for believing the distribution water and electricity can never be made consistently profitable since random losses through long-distance networks constitute a considerable fraction of the cost of service to the end user.

As for Scargill and Thatcher. Had the NUM won then perhaps the UK wouldn't have squandered the vast unearned benison of North Sea oil + gas on unemployment benefits and mortgage repayments and would instead have tended that wealth into a multi-trillion pound sovereign wealth fund like socialist Norway?

Think about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democorruptcy
On 11/01/2019 at 07:53, Barnsey said:

F**king Flybe, sold us out for 1p a share, to think I was going to sell last night for 16p. Well we all have to learn at some point to follow Buffett's advice a little more religiously! Still an absolute con job though. Previous rejected bid was at 40p, and last night's news suggested 9p which at the time I was furious about. Never too early for a drink methinks!

There are some impressive daily rises going on, +42% today. Any views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The UK taxpayer is currently propping up hopelessly inefficient private rail companies, bus companies, water companies, electricity companies, home builders and building services contractors either through direct govt grants or lucrative corporate tax cuts, while at the same time being relentlessly gouged year-on-year for services that are often sub-par and which at times would disgrace the Third World.

Privatisation serves the interests of Big Money; public ownership serves everyone. Indeed, as Enron demonstrated heroically, there physical reasons for believing the distribution water and electricity can never be made consistently profitable since random losses through long-distance networks constitute a considerable fraction of the cost of service to the end user.

As for Scargill and Thatcher. Had the NUM won then perhaps the UK wouldn't have squandered the vast unearned benison of North Sea oil + gas on unemployment benefits and mortgage repayments and would instead have tended that wealth into a multi-trillion pound sovereign wealth fund like socialist Norway?

Think about it!

a good argument but ive got nordic friends and they pay insane levels of tax and beer is about 8 quid a pint.historicly they pay close to 42% tax its hunky dory haveing billions in a soverighn wealth fund but only if it actualy gets spent.

https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/personal-income-tax-rate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democorruptcy
13 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

a good argument but ive got nordic friends and they pay insane levels of tax and beer is about 8 quid a pint.historicly they pay close to 42% tax its hunky dory haveing billions in a soverighn wealth fund but only if it actualy gets spent.

https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/personal-income-tax-rate

I know they don't have Wetherspoons so the beer is more expensive but '8 quid a pint' must be partly down to Sterling dropping? I don't know which currency you mean but last Friday compared to Oct 2007 I have Sterling down

USD -38%, Yen -41%, Euro -21%, AUD -20%, CHF -47%

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

a good argument but ive got nordic friends and they pay insane levels of tax and beer is about 8 quid a pint.historicly they pay close to 42% tax its hunky dory haveing billions in a soverighn wealth fund but only if it actualy gets spent.

https://tradingeconomics.com/norway/personal-income-tax-rate

Living in Norway is a bit different I must admit. The expensive beer is in the pubs but it's a lot cheaper in the supermarkets. Wine etc. is not a lot more expensive in the Vinmonopolet (government run wine and spirits store chain)

Cars are a lot more expensive but petrol only a little more.

Food is a bit more expensive unless you eat out where it's very expensive

Rent is a bit cheaper for the type of place I want, and usually includes heating and hot water (communal)

No council tax for renters (they have a wealth tax on owners which includes real estate)

Public transport is a bit dearer but clean, reliable and usually on time.

I earn about 30% more in Norway to compensate so I'm still a lot better off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Democorruptcy said:

I know they don't have Wetherspoons so the beer is more expensive but '8 quid a pint' must be partly down to Sterling dropping? I don't know which currency you mean but last Friday compared to Oct 2007 I have Sterling down

USD -38%, Yen -41%, Euro -21%, AUD -20%, CHF -47%

 

 

It's to do with their taxes and their rules on alcohol. They don't really like people getting drunk and have all kinds of whacky purchasing rules from what I understand that makes the bible belts sunday rules look positively rosey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...