Greece Watch...

[biffvernon]

Cue Paul Mason... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HMs0kkUvq8

[Little John]

That is a technology thing in part.

That is a deliberate non-answer, as usual

That's unfair. Technology is a major driver of the situation we find ourselves in. Certainly not the whole answer but a significant part of it.

I'm not sure anyone has a good plan for making 'labour pay' as it once did. The medium term pressures are to further devalue labour - what's your plan?

Yes it is fair. If he had made mention of the effects technology has on the price of labour and then went on to mention what mitigating policies may be implemented, then his comment would have amounted to an answer to your point. If, even, he had made mention of such technological issues and then went on to say that he did not give a shit about the social consequences and thus no mitigating measures were needed, that would also have been an answer, irrespective of how odious it might be to someone like me.

However, as he has done on a number of occasions since infecting this board, his answers go only so far as he can get away with, usually via simplicities or obfuscations of a given issue. But, he makes sure, where possible to avoid going the whole hog and spelling out the full political/economic and social consequences of his position. Instead, settling for supercilious, obfuscatory, red-herring answers.

All of which amounts to non answers

As for alternatives? Well, an acknowledgement that alternatives are needed would be a start. However, since you ask:

Raise massive tax hikes on earning over 1m. Raise even more massive taxes on parasitic earnings such as the domestic real estate rental sector. State seizure of all commons assets that are directly linked to the economic functioning of the country. The energy sector being an obvious example.

None of which will protect the poorest from a share of the inevitable climbdown form our consumption led industrial perch. However, if there is to be a even a hope of avoiding major civil insurrection and bloodshed ending, eventually, in barbarism, then all of the above and much more must be implemented.

[biffvernon]

And as Euclid just tweeted:

Euclide Tsakalotos ‏@EuclideTsakalo 5m5 minutes ago
We can not solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. A E

[johnhemming2]

That's the way it is and so there is nothing to be done about it? Tell me, at what point would you consider action necessary?

I highlighted the impact of technology and its effect on the economy as something needing a response many years ago. My worry is that many people are excluded from active participation.

[biffvernon]

I highlighted the impact of technology and its effect on the economy as something needing a response many years ago. My worry is that many people are excluded from active participation.

That was the central plank of David Fleming's economics PhD, back in the day, before the internet was even invented.

[Little John]

That's the way it is and so there is nothing to be done about it? Tell me, at what point would you consider action necessary?

I highlighted the impact of technology and its effect on the economy as something needing a response many years ago. My worry is that many people are excluded from active participation.

given that every post you have put up on this forum since you recently infected it with your bullshit has both implicity and, when pushed, explicitly made it clear your position is that no response is necessary, your current post is yet another non-answer.

Answer the f***ing question here and now

[johnhemming2]

If I have already said that action is necessary then I am clearly answering your question.

[Little John]

If I have already said that action is necessary then I am clearly answering your question.

What action? Every single post of yours has thus far indicated precisely the opposite.

[vtsnowedin]

This is not necessarily or, even, primarily a debate about stimulus versus austerity. It is, arguably, one about equity. Though, those who would be apologists for the status-quo vis-a-vis the super rich staying that way would, if they get their way, certainly have the debate framed in such a simplistic manner.

Simplistic am I? How about putting some of those under 25's to work at something that is useful enough to pay the bills?
There can be no equity in the long term in any project that can't pay it's bills plus a return.

[Little John]

This is not necessarily or, even, primarily a debate about stimulus versus austerity. It is, arguably, one about equity. Though, those who would be apologists for the status-quo vis-a-vis the super rich staying that way would, if they get their way, certainly have the debate framed in such a simplistic manner.

Simplistic am I? How about putting some of those under 25's to work at something that is useful enough to pay the bills?
There can be no equity in the long term in any project that can't pay it's bills plus a return.

I've got a job for an army of under 25s.

They could be employed to build cheap social housing owned by the taxpayer that could then be rented to those same young people (without the need to extract a profit to a private landlord or shareholders, in other words, needing only to recoup the cost of production and maintenance) who, presently have not got a hope in f***ing hell of ever being able to afford to buy their own place and are, instead condemned to perpetual adolescence living with their parents or equally condemned to a life of rent slavery at the hands of buy to let landlords who can wring them dry due to an unregulated market where the demand side of that market is trapped since the one thing that can't be invented is new land.

And that's just for starters

[vtsnowedin]

This is not necessarily or, even, primarily a debate about stimulus versus austerity. It is, arguably, one about equity. Though, those who would be apologists for the status-quo vis-a-vis the super rich staying that way would, if they get their way, certainly have the debate framed in such a simplistic manner.

Simplistic am I? How about putting some of those under 25's to work at something that is useful enough to pay the bills?
There can be no equity in the long term in any project that can't pay it's bills plus a return.

I've got a job for an army of under 25s.

They could be employed to build cheap social housing owned by the taxpayer that could then be rented to those same young people (without the need to extract a profit to a private landlord or shareholders, in other words, needing only to recoup the cost of production and maintenance) who, presently have not got a hope in ******* hell of ever being able to afford to buy their own place and are, instead condemned to perpetual adolescence living with their parents or equally condemned to a life of rent slavery at the hands of buy to let landlords who can wring them dry due to an unregulated market where the demand side of that market is trapped since the one thing that can't be invented is new land.

And that's just for starters

You have a misunderstanding of the efficiencies of a government bureaucracy that would be charming if not the beliefs you hold, held by a majority, would not bring any country to ruin and bankruptcy.

[Little John]

All you have done there is simply state your prejudices without a single shred of evidence.

[kenneal - lagger]

Vt, the UK has a very efficient set of Housing Associations which build houses to a generally higher standard than our national builders do. The space and insulation standards of their houses are much better and the rents charged are lower than the private sector.

The private sector builder in the UK generally builds down the national Building Regulations and to a price so that housing in the UK is getting smaller as years go by. I find, when measuring houses for extensions, that a four bedroom house built in the last ten years will have the same floor area as a three bedroom house built in the 1970s. If the build standard of the 70s houses weren't so bad, insulation wise as well as architecturally, I would certainly recommend buying an older house. As it is you would have to spend circa £30k on insulating an older house, although that would give you a much better insulated house than even recently built ones.

Unfortunately the British public is so ignorant that they would generally buy a house with a fancy kitchen or an extra bedroom rather than a really well insulated one. There are a few people who know the value of insulation but they are few and far between. The building industry knows this so they campaign against improved insulation standards so that they can build new houses with a higher number of increasingly small bedrooms on increasingly smaller plots.

[vtsnowedin]

Just the opposite here. New houses are much larger today then they were in the 70s and double what they were in the 1950s. The last two new ones I appraised had ten inch thick walls and heat exchangers on the ventilation systems. 3500 Sq. ft. of house on 25 acres or more with walk in closets larger then a NY apartment. Even factory built modular homes have six inch wall insulation and triple glazed windows etc.

[peaceful_life]

This is not necessarily or, even, primarily a debate about stimulus versus austerity. It is, arguably, one about equity. Though, those who would be apologists for the status-quo vis-a-vis the super rich staying that way would, if they get their way, certainly have the debate framed in such a simplistic manner.

Simplistic am I? How about putting some of those under 25's to work at something that is useful enough to pay the bills?
There can be no equity in the long term in any project that can't pay it's bills plus a return.

Jobs of work?.... we've got completely defunct systems of dependency which need completely redesigned and restructured.

There's no shortage of useful work needing done.