Re: Expensive housing
And planning restrictions too.
507 posts • joined 10 Nov 2011
And planning restrictions too.
"Housing is beyond belief, but many buildings are rent controlled (max ~1 per cent increase a year), which is vital to keeping this city interesting"
Rent control is what keep housing expensive. It cuts down on the supply of housing which causes prices to rise. The Apple/Google/Etc stock options does lead to a small increase in the average price but only because the rich buy really expensive homes.
Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed. Quoted from http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html
The public are tiring of Climage Change so they need to be scared into believing its will happen* so that those who make money from Greenie policies (like Dale Vince of Ecotricity, who has no connection with the BBC and this story but is just an example of one of those who profit from Green policies) can carry on raking it in.
* will happen or could happen, it doesn't matter when a disaster movie is presented as science, in the mind of the public it becomes a definite, not a possibility.
More like the canned statement is saying that HSBC Switzerland followed Swiss law but now that countries are making agreements to cut back on secrecy Switzerland is changing its laws and HSBC Switzerland is changing too. HSBC Switzerland is not the same company as HSBC England. They might be managed by the same overarching group, but they have to follow local laws. If you say otherwise then Chinese companies might as well setup here and follow Chinese law when employing staff with Chinese H&S regs etc.
And you have no idea what you are talking about either. Keynesianism was not the saviour of the postwar slump. The war created the slump, stop the war and the economies recovered. Keynes has a point that a certain amount of state spending can counter a boom-bust but everyone who is a Keynes disciple seems to think that the state can solve all boom-busts. Keynes said a certain amount of spending can allievate the problem, but it's not a cure. Hayek is just as much a nutter as Keynes. They both have valid points. Thinking one is a god and the other the devil makes you a nutter.
PS. How does money sitting in an offshore bank account rot? Does the bank just sit on it and do nothing. Or does it loan money out to entrepeneurs and invest in business in order to get a return and pay an interest on the money banked in them?
Actual research has shown that the people who believe in the MMR/Autism link are also the ones who believe that global warming is a major problem and that the world will end if we don't stop burning hydrocarbons.
What uses CO2 to live?
The excess CO2 in the atmosphere will cause more plants to grow. So global warming is a good thing (except for those who get drowned) as the rest of us will get more food to eat.
Whilst Sony were hacked, it was probably more an inside job, than a hack by NK. As for all the brew-ha-ha about cinema goers being bombed for watching it, that sounds more like an attempt at bigging up the film because it was so crap in the first place that the only way to make any money from it was to hype it up to the rafters. What better way than to create a demand to see the film than to withdraw it for a while and then miraculously all the security problems disappear and the film is shown to a clamouring public. Except it'll still go down in the annals of movie history as a crap film.
It wasn't Amazon whose tax affairs are marked as illegal, but Luxembourg's. Amazon are just following the rules set by Lux. So we are arguing about which laws trumps which. In effect the EU is saying that they are the ultimate authority and that countries have no right to decide their own laws. Why do we bother with a UK parliament and paying 600 odd people lots of money if they can't make laws.
LVT would not make any difference to development of land. Amending the planning system would do that. LVT is a stupid tax as will tax people who have no income but lots of value in their home, e.g. pensioners. So will they have to sell their home and move to a cheaper land value property? Or will there have to be lots of exceptions - which complicates the tax system and downgrades its efficacy and efficiency.
As you say, a phone's reader is not secure - Apple's broken with a silicone mould and graphite as shown here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u4ZLGsw1zo
I met my wife online 14 years ago, been married 13 years. Took a year of searching.
The wrong solution to the wrong problem.
HS2 does not solve transport problems and is a centrally planned solution to a non existent problem. Technology has already made the issue mute. WiFi on trains, 3G/4G mobiles, charging points, all allow people to work on trains so it doesn't matter that the trip takes 30 minutes longer than a hypothetical HS2.
Buses do not solve transport problems either. Centrally planned (bus routes set by planners) with no regard to how people actually live and work. Buses cause just as many traffic problems as they solve. Rather than trying to use an inappropriate method to solve transport issues, the best thing that politicians and civil servants could have done is to have done nothing. Technology always progresses at rate to overtake centrally planned solutions which is hindered by bureaucracy and red tape.
It's not so much that Google cars are a better solution to buses, but that UberTaxi is just as good. Anything that adapts to how people really live and work is the best solution. Maybe that might mean more small apartments closer to workplaces or more renting so that the workforce is more mobile and not tied to overpriced houses or it could mean better traffic flow or something that no one has thought of yet.
They shouldn't aim for a minimum wage. All it will do is depress wages as bureaucracy will never be quick to increase it. If there is no minimum wage, but there are lots of jobs, then just the demand for workers will cause the companies to increase wages to keep their staff.
As for $220/month. It might not be a living wage in Singapore itself, but in Bantam it probably goes a long way for those living in the shacks on stilts. Context is everything. It's like the calls for a national minimum wage here in the UK which then has to have exceptions for London. Even inside a small country like the UK the cost of living depends on where you live. Demands for the Living Wage have caused the public sector in the North East to be a lot better off than the private sector, and the private sector cannot afford the NMW for those whose jobs aren't worth it. They'd rather overload existing staff than get another person in (along with Employers NI and other costs).
Bantam is the current location for cheap labour, just like Japan was, then China. Now Chinese wages increase by over 20% each year, so they are looking for cheap labour themselves. Bantam and Africa are the place the Chinese are looking at.
So the wages of those in Bantam are low. Now. For a short time. But given the increase in workers, and the demand for them, it won't be long before their wages increase. So rather than worry about it and think like all politicians that "something must be done", the best thing is to do nothing and let the workers go to the jobs which pay better and have better conditions. Simple market forces will cause wages to increase within a few years.
And have the EU data protection laws actually protected us from EU corporations? Doesn't look like it. Most data loss is down to criminal activity and creating laws doesn't stop that, even though politicians think it does.
Foodbanks are a new phenomenon because they are the result of marketing by the Trussel Trust.
As for your example. The spare room subsidy (your use of the term Bedroom Tax shows your political leanings) can be alleviated by asking the council for a new home or getting the council to help from the fund that allows for exceptions. A mobile phone can be cheap, and cost next to nothing to use if they only use it when really necessary.
And how do many of your cases build up their debts? Have they spent more than they earned? I suspect a majority are in that boat. Should the tax payer support all these people who can't balance their bank accounts and get into problems or should such people be allowed to learn from their mistakes.
"written by proper journalists that often write on economic matters" Not at the Guardian, it doesn't employ any proper journalists. Just people who continue the memes of the group think of the left. Though to be honest, none of the other papers employ proper journalists either, just churnalists.
1/3 of the grid might be non-fossil on good days, on bad days, it'll be 0%. Today its only 15% as gridwatch* shows. Renewable is to variable to of any use. And to wasteful of space to be useful too. The UK currently has just over 4000 wind turbines and the spoil the countryside everywhere you look. Imagine the numbers going up to 75,000. And you can't say that solar would cut the number down as we would need both enough solar to power the whole country and enough wind to power the whole country for the days when one isn't powering.
Me, I like to use my car when I want and not be denied its use just because there wasn't enough solar or wind power to charge it.
Another alternative health care system is that of the French, paid for by government but run privately. Even the WHO says its one of the best systems in the world.
Why do we need the ASA to tell us that vloggers are likely to be paid in promoting products, its a bit obvious that they are. Do the ASA think we are all stupid. Should the ASA make pronouncement purely on the basis that a few odd people are naive.
Its LED, not LCD.
In the 70s we were warned about reds under the bed. Now I think we should be warned about reds in our vegtable beds, specifically watermelons.
Greenpeace use "green" as a marketing label, underneath they are promoters of the reds, socialism. And if you thought Labour was left wing, Greens are even further to the left.
UKIP is against the EU controlling the UK, not against cooperation and trade between EU states.
@Frankee Llonnygog, Coal miners switched to using the safety lamp, not because the law changed but because mine owners didn't want to lose their mines after explosions and were persuaded of its safety by Davy.
Laws were brought into to regulate the use of children to sweep chimneys before education laws cut the supply of children to nearly nothing. Education was required because capitalism needs skilled workers to do better more productive work. Only after compulsory education was a law brought into to stop the use of children to clean chimneys.
The abolition of slavery might have stopped plantations from using blacks for labour, but they switched to using labour from other countries like India which was slave labour in all but name. It was capitalism which cut down the use of labour with the use of machinery which was even more efficient than very cheap labour.
So in all the cases you highlight it wasn't laws that stopped the action, but capitalism.
I think Tim understand more about economics than you do.
For instance you say rich people can invest their money, taking it out of supply. Have you not thought about where that money is put? Do you think rich people put it under their matresses?
When rich people invest their money they put it into business or into a bank account to name two. In both cases, the money gets reused. When used directly in a business, it's used to grow it, and in a bank to fund loans to other businesses who want to grow too. And as a business grows, it spends more on employee's wages and services/goods from other companies.
You don't understand economics. It doesn't involve just money and cash, it also covers society, humanity, technology, and loads of other things. Economics is a study of how humans live, work, and play.
That's your opinion, Branson thinks he knows better than you. And considering that he actually has paid people to look into this, he's probably more right than you (unless you're a secret rocket inventor).
The point is that the free market allows lots of different methods of space travel to be tried out. Some might work, some might fail, but over time the best will win. The other way of doing it, via big government and lots of planning or one person's view of what is the most viable way, has no guarantee that it is the best way, it's just one way - but until other ways have been tried no one will know.
No inconsistency exists. Tweets are public and can be viewed by the public, processing of the information in a tweet involves personal data. It is the processing of the tweet to determine the mental state of the tweeter that is against the DPA, not that the tweet can be viewed publicly.
Nope, no one would have said "hang on". The problem is all charities are populated by do gooders who think that they should do something, anything, even when the thing is counter productive.
A sign that the ICO has balls would be if they went for Greenpeace and fined them. Greenpeace's standard operating procedure is to create anxiety with every single one of their marketing campaigns.
Nice film, but 15% of the film is set aside for the list of crew. So many people on the crew just screams out to me that loads of money has been thrown at this project for little return. Other production companies can produce better for less. But because the EU is involved, money is no object. In fact money IS the object in that as much as possible has been plowed into the film.
Cal is not liberal in any definition of the word. Fascist more like as they impose each politician's favourite moral view in a new law every year.
Mark Diston's review is just about the only review of Revolution that has any hint of positive about it. Every other review of it, even from fellow lefties, is totally negative about it. At least Mark says that the book is woolly and confused.
I would say that the book is total crap and not even worth using as toilet paper.
Starbucks the brand is global, but the actual shops are usually local business, franchises.
Except that it won't be live but delayed by about half an hour.
DAB is a sign that state imposed technology is a failure. The BBC is effectively the state and it is trying to impose a technology on the public. Because the state is huge and cumbersome, it cannot react to advances in technology quickly enough and carries on lumbering through the process. The free market is a lot more agile and flexible and has already solved the problem of bad signal reception by going for the IP route. It didn't require any intelligence or planning or thought for this to happen, it just happens. Yes, the free market can be inefficient and there are many other solutions to digital radio that didn't work and fell by the wayside. But with them, only their investors lost out. With the attempt at a state imposed solution, everyone loses out.
"IBM Research says the system can concentrate the Sun's energy 2,000 times, and turn 80 per cent of that into electricity."
Doesn't change the fact that overall photovoltaics are only about 30% efficient. They are cheating and making up numbers to fool people into thinking that they've suddenly found the solution to the problem with solar power.
So all they've done is use the concept of core memory from the 60s and shrink it down?
I don't. He made a simple mistake. Security theatre is what I hate. A total airport lock down and re-checking every passenger because one person showed up the security for being stupid highlights the stupid security officials and the waste of space in their brains.
Proper security would mean such things wouldn't happen in the first place. Proper security would mean identifying the person and getting just him to go through security. Proper security would mean ensuring there aren't queues of people queuing for checking but ripe for bombing. Proper security would mean checking those people who are security risks. Proper security means staying ahead of the potential terrorists not one step behind adding new checks after the terrorist has tried something.
@strum, so why are the IPCC reports so wrong with their guestimates of what the global temperature should be. They might have done a lot of work, but their results aren't that good.
We live on a planet with a complex and robust ecosystem. The planet changed many times over the millennia from hot periods to cold periods and back. Man wasn't involved in those periods and yet the planet survived and flourished.
The problem is the complexity, and the models from all the climate scientists keep failing to cover the complexity. They seem to think its simple and that CO2 has warmed the earth and that a very tiny change in CO2 will lead to positive feedbacks leading to a boiling hot temperature. Bit of exaggeration there but you get the point. They don't take into account any negative feedbacks that might exist and that might stop temperatures from running out of control. The fact that the global temperature has flat lined for over 17 years shows that they haven't taken that into account in their models. Even if they come up with the excuse that the heat has disappeared into the oceans it highlights that they were wrong in the past. So all those bad news stories about the sky is falling based on those original theories are bunkum and the current ones aren't going to be much better.
So what do we do? Do we mitigate like the greenies want us to do and throw away all the progress over the last few hundred years and get rid of all forms of efficient energy and go back to the dark ages or do we adapt just like humanity has adapted to live in climates from 0C to 50C? Looking at how much western nations are spending on mitigation and nothing much is happening to the global climate because China and India and other countries keep on using coal and churning out CO2 it seems that greenies are in the wrong.
I believe that climate change is happening, I deny that it's all due to man, and I want us to carry on using our sources of energy to progress to a better more efficient world where we spend money on the actual problems not perceived ones based on a crap precautionary principle. A change in climate will produce some good as well as some bad. Greenies think its all bad, but it just means everything changes, some positive some negative.
So why do women flaunt their beauty to get good acting jobs or use their feminine charms to get promotion, yet when men react to such actions they claim that men are misogynists.
Also, why do most feminists seem to be ugly? Is it because they are upset that they can't use their beauty or feminine charms and so are actually fighting against their fellow female than attacking men.
Thank you for reading the book so that we don't have to.
Then there are the terms hardware/firmware/software. My wife still giggles when I say I'm writing firmware. Even after 12 years.
Sarcasm, not irony.
Curiosity is not looking for anthropogenic climate change so therefore is not a proper science mission. Just going there and looking for stuff and making up theories from the stuff that is found is not proper science. To do proper science you have to come up with a theory first, model it and then adjust the data from real measurements to match your models.
Yep, it is usually more nuanced than I put in my first comment.
I've known a few women who worked in a primarily female dominated environment and the tales they told me of the innuendo they threw at the odd male would shock many. In any environment what ever group dominates will always pick on the weak or odd one out. If it's male dominated IT, women will be picked on. In a female dominated production line in textiles, the male will be picked on. In manual workforce with low education requirements, the brainy one will be picked on. In an environment full of scientists, the low paid techs will be picked on. Not nice in any environment, but if you think that you can get rid of it easily you don't know human psychology.
Try this link instead - http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/8/25/kelly-on-the-engineering-challenge.html
Good luck with trying to save the world. Read this presentation and think again about the point of your project.