Can we stop calling economics a ‘science’. It clearly isn’t. If it was then the bankers who caused the economic crash would have easily seen it coming by the mathematics.

Perhaps we could have a new degree for economics? Bachelor of Makingitallupaswegoalong perhaps?

If we built more homes and stopped protecting the people who over-borrowed in the 2000s prices would fall and disposable income would rise. the actual amount of money doesn’t matter, it’s the value of it.

You’d be talking about bringing about a worse financial catastrophe than the last one. All of a sudden everyone who has bought a property in the last 20 years cannot afford their mortgages (due to the huge rise in interest which undeniably would happen) and the banks being left with assets which are not worth what they have lent on them. It would make the crunch look like a blip.

Indeed Rusty
I would wager most MW jobs cannot be moved abroad- we barely make anything any more and where we do it is highly skilled anyway
Retail
Care work
Security industry
Basic Admin/Office Work
Cleaners
bar workers
Hospitality
Catering
ETC

They cannot really be relocated abroad as they have to be done here.
Its just more of the same from the RW if we improve the lot of workers be it holiday pay, maternity pay, equal pay, the 6 day week, ending child labour its the poor that will suffer

The reality is that this, in the main, is just BS and they are not motivated by concern for the weakest in society but concern for the bottom line and their own profits.

@DrJ – Germany manages to ‘out export’ and ‘out manufacture’ India despite having a tiny proportion of it’s population without having to employ children or use Poor Houses. Devaluing (a massively inflated) currency to make it competitive on the world stage isn’t the same an underpaying and exploiting people.

Lots of Indians are poor because despite the size of their industry, there are 2bn people sharing it and they have 10% unemployment (not to mention a lack of employment laws which we enjoy).

There are many studies which say 50% of all jobs will go over the next few decades as automation and robotics really takes off,now smart software is putting traders and clerical workers out of a jobs so well educated white collar workers are also in the line of fire.

just slagging of the so called unskilled does not help even skilled workers are going to lose out solidarity is whats needed.

someone needs to start thinking outside the box and voting outside the box.

wrecker – Member

If we built more homes and stopped protecting the people who over-borrowed in the 2000s prices would fall and disposable income would rise. the actual amount of money doesn’t matter, it’s the value of it.

You’d be talking about bringing about a worse financial catastrophe than the last one. All of a sudden everyone who has bought a property in the last 20 years cannot afford their mortgages (due to the huge rise in interest which undeniably would happen) and the banks being left with assets which are not worth what they have lent on them. It would make the crunch look like a blip.

No, I’m talking about the correction which we should have made during the crash and didn’t – we postponed the problem rather than fixing it – and anyway, interest rates can be raised slowly and house building takes time it would be a gradual correction – frankly if anyone who self-certed themselves into a too big mortgage in 2007 hasn’t put their house in order by now, they only have themselves to blame.

If the crash had been allowed to happen wealth would have been redistributed its the way capitalism is meant to work but the wealthy scared the politicians into believing it would mean chaos, well for them it would have but it would have produced opportunity for others.

So, call centre workers, plastic toy workers, engineers, economists, will all be seeing a change in their standard of living under that scenario.

Very true, so they keep needing to be better at what they do or do something else or accept wage deflation. I spent part of my career working in and specialising in India (90s) but bloody obvious that there were people with similar skills who were paid 50% of what I was paid. Moral of the story, change quickly and do something else.

Good news these days is that it is becoming more expensive to locate many operations in India, SA, China and Brazil, so plenty of jobs moving back to the UK, Europe, especially in manufacturing.

No, I’m talking about the correction which we should have made during the crash and didn’t – we postponed the problem rather than fixing it

And steal off the prudent (savers) while massively mis-pricing risk. All in the name of capitalism (sic)

No, I’m talking about the correction which we should have made during the crash and didn’t

You mean we couldn’t. It would have made things 100x worse. Devauling the assets of banks which were already in deep shit and forcing people into bankruptcy.

– we postponed the problem rather than fixing it –

People have been saying this for 15 odd years, still hasn’t happened (for good reason).

frankly if anyone who self-certed themselves into a too big mortgage in 2007 hasn’t put their house in order by now, they only have themselves to blame.

One minute you seem to know how much houses cost, the next you don’t. Devaluing what is highly likely to be the vast majority of the UK populations biggest asset, plunging them into negative equity is not going to make things better for the UK. It’ll propbably not help people on lower incomes to buy a house (which isn’t a divine right) as the banks will be too ****ed to lend any money.

It’ll propbably not help people on lower incomes to buy a house (which isn’t a divine right) as the banks will be too ****ed to lend any money.

No but it should be! government should have to make sure adequate and affordable housing is available for its people we pay them to look after us …all of us not just the rich.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/future-business-alternatives-capitalism

interesting article which shows there are alternatives to capitalism as we know it.

Given that two of his three pillars of capitalism do not exist in reality, seems a rather misjudged title/article

The definitive opening may not hold up to scrutiny either

Other than that…..

No but it should be!

Erm….no. You buy what you can afford. A house is no more an entitlement than a Lamborghini.

No but it should be! government should have to make sure adequate and affordable housing is available for its people we pay them to look after us …all of us not just the rich.

Agree with your second sentence. However, providing adequate and affordable housing availability, is not the same as providing a divine right to own a house. If you get housing right, people don’t even necessarily want to own a house – look at Germany for instance.

Given that two of his three pillars of capitalism do not exist in reality, seems a rather misjudged title/article

The definitive opening may not hold up to scrutiny either

Other than that…..

Classic. Now including an off-hand dismissal of climate change.

Very true, so they keep needing to be better at what they do or do something else or accept wage deflation.

Easily said from your smug perch, but less easy for those struggling to put food on their kids’ table to put into practice. Unless you want to take part in some sort of Liberatrian race to the bottom, then its the government’s job to help people get over the hill and find a better life, not just sit back and let the devil take the hindmost.

Nice DR, how well put.

Yes there are things that governments might do, we just differ in terms of what they are.