Wednesday, 4 December 2013
Saturday, 30 November 2013
He's defending to death the movement of capital since this makes his banks and big corporations rack up the billions in profit which sustain his party financed and united.
He is OK with the movement of goods because he needs to be seen he is promoting British exports, though despite the pound devaluation, lower labor costs, lower corporate rate and historically low effective tax rates paid by its businesses at home, despite healthy global markets the trade deficit has widened and the Albion's competitiveness is in tatters.
He has never been a true defender of free movement of people, though he finds it inconceivable that Brits would not be able to settle wherever they wish as no nation in their own mind would not open their arms to the skills, expertise and joy that are always brought along by HM subjects. He is now starting a bitter crusade against foreigners, showing to the world that xenophobia is not Daily Mail's privilege, is indeed a strong national attribute.
He should feel embarrassed though of his low blow on Romanians and Bulgarians. Nigel Farage is a low character, low IQ challenger to the crown of fanatic nationalism who's not expected to recognise the scientific evidence in favour of immigration, nor not to unfairly turn his venom against two nations which harmed Britain interests in no way so far. Cameron is supposed to be smarter, better and broader in his argumentation. His point is the poor East Europeans are driven to Britain by the income gap. He has been embarrassed by the fact that most immigrants are from PT, ES, GR and IT, where the GDP per head is much higher than in say HU, SK or LV yet came to the UK in droves, simply because they can, not even because are not under Farage's microscope. And, mind you, the Italians are not all of them highly skilled economists, engineers or bankers. Many of them serve pizzas - precisely the type of jobs the Brits are supposed to lose to Bulgarians. The Portuguese may walk the mini-Brits into the parks and are paid below the national minimum wage or illegally. And I read very little in the Daily Mail about the growing number of British homeless begging on Regent Street with their dogs impressing the shoppers with their candid glances. Are they going to be deported?
What if Bulgaria and Poland imported no more than 30 Indian or Japanese cars manufactured in Britain if the Brits put a cap on their emigrants? What if Barclays Capital would be excluded from making the books for the next juicy privatisation in Lisbon or Riga or Bucharest?
What if Spain or Greece removed access to their health services for all the Brits retired in Malaga or Rhodes, and by the way I am sure these peaceful residents of their sunny coasts don't fly back to Croydon to treat their diabetes.
So make up your mind Cameron: are you a man or a lousy headless chicken?
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
Oh dear. I thought the rich are rich because they have this ... flair. Ok one may place Rooney alongside Romney and Osbourne (both George and Ozzy actually) and thats a bit unfair since raw talent is not always accompanied by brain power.
But the sad truth is most rich are rich because they were born so (George, not Ozzy) and they are pretty incapable of making the most out of their fortunes if not something good for the society. Despite being privately educated.
The other thing is how morally pathetic to be a wealth manager. Just a clown in a suit, a toff entertainer, someone to carry the briefcase between phaesant shootings and racing Aston Martins at Silverstone. Charging the fat cats top dollar for scientifically wasting their money. What a grotesque circus! But hey, prostitution has always paid handsomely. No need to be ashamed of yourselves. Just brush your tongues properly before bed to take the bitter taste of brown off them.
Friday, 13 September 2013
Houses are unaffordable because there is demand way above the supply. The supply is restricted because of the consistent policy applied by successive governments to encourage nymbism in the name of democracy (or sacrosant property rights). This strategy is the fruit of excellent propaganda carried out by the well-off who own land and capital. If you believe that owning a house you are better off because your "asset" grows in price and that the zillions of pounds sunk into bricks (call it unproductive capital) come at no cost for you from other parts of the economy, think again. You may feel wealthier, but your cost of living surpasses your asset appreciation, and you are in effect poorer.
The propaganda machine worked very well to convince people there is nowhere in sight to build more. That Britain is a densely populated small island. The words "redevelopment" and "high rise" have been taken out from the dictionary but may apply to the top end of the housing market, or in remote areas nobody should really live in.
Mr Carney is a charming man, but if he believes houses are affordable and there is no "bubble" I would like him to answer a few questions:
1) he's paid some £874,000 including a £250,000-a-year housing allowance. So would he support legislation requiring all employers to pay 25-30% housing allowance on top of the regular income?
2) has he looked at median house price and median income, or at average house prices on a GDP-weighted basis? Is the person in the middle of the economy more, or less able to buy a house in 2013 than in 2007? If wealth is created in London and house prices in London surpass income then should the BoE be worried that the sustainability of the economic recovery is feeble?
3) has he asked the person who packs his wife's bags at their local Sainsbury where do they live, how long does it take to get to work, and how many people share the bathroom?
4) has he looked at the average price per sq meter and average household area? Perhaps house prices have not shot up in a bubble but houses are smaller and smaller so his "macro" analysis has some flaws
Rest assured, Mr Carney is going to print money, on paper, plastic or alufoil to ensure people will believe it is in their interest to go on ever higher debts for ever smaller homes. They call this "affordable mortgages". Don't waste any second. Go buy a house, the timing is right!
Sunday, 28 July 2013
A Goldman Sachs (!) economist was daring to pronounce solemnly the other day that houses in the UK are UNDERVALUED, by comparing them to bonds, so considering the low rates prices should be higher. So jump ahead and buy he's implicitly urging us.
This is an example of the rigorous mass psychosis orchestrated by the leaders of this country to achieve their rich enrichment objective. They started with Margaret Thatcher whispering into your ear: you have to have a house. Well, they managed to convince people this is best for them.
But hey, this is a country where 3/4ths of the public believe (genuinely!) that the Olympic Games 2012 were a good way to spend some 10 billion pounds from your taxes.
The propaganda machine is greased and working perfectly. In stark contrast with most government services.
Friday, 12 July 2013
1) it denies a basic intellectual property attribute such as packaging to a legal product
2) it contradicts the stance on the role and size of the state (particularly at times of austerity)
A pack of 10 cigarettes is some £4.5, so one stick costs 45p. A Snickers bar is about 40p. The excise on tobacco is 16.5% of retail price plus £176.22 per 1,000 cigarettes, so some 25p of the price of a stick (VAT is another 7p or so, so the government takes some 72% of what the consumer is paying.
I would agree with plain packaging, or making tobacco illegal alltogether if the government would guarantee that by eating 10 Snickers bars a day I live longer than by smoking 10 cigarettes.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
For all people who are outraged by the families receiving more than £26,000 per year: over your life time, you are much, much more likely to lose your job (and need help from government to keep your roof above your head and children in school) than to benefit from the drop in top income tax from 50% to 45%.
The assumption most people on benefits are lazy and abuse the hard working ones is a failure to recognize most people lose their job not because they did not work hard enough, but because of the poor decisions taken by those who make tens of times more money than them, and who are being given a boost in their annual disposable income equivalent to the whole disposable income for a person in the bottom quartiles.