Cost of living crisis.

[dsr-burnley]

On 27/02/2023 at 19:02, Izzy said:

What a cool idea. It's like being back in the 1940's

 

Cost of living: Neighbours share potato-cooking duties to cut costs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64763011

 

Neighbours in north-east London are cooking food for the street in one oven once a week to reduce energy usage.

Potato Mondays was launched by Adam Walters, who lives in Walthamstow, in a bid to cut down on emissions and build a sense of community.

Instead of firing up multiple ovens, those joining in alternate cooking jacket potatoes for everyone else, with the weekly chef then delivering them.

I think it's very much off of the BBC to presume that the man is lying about his motives.  He says it's to reduce emissions and generate a sense of community, but the slant of the article clearly implies that he's lying and it's all about the money.

[dsr-burnley]

Fact: more people now are struggling to pay for their central heating than did in the fifties.

Fact: more people now are struggling to run their car than did in the fifties.

Fact: more people now are disappointed about having to put off retirement to 57 than did in the fifties.

Fact: people now are being forced to spend more than 90% of their income on non-food items, which is why there are so many food banks. 

 

Back in the fifties, when there was no central heating, few cars, little early retirement, and people spent less than two-thirds of their income on non-food items, we didn't have food banks or such apparent desperate poverty.  All we need do now is ditch the cars, the pensions, the heating, and of course the mobile phones and TVs and internet and foreign holidays and so forth, and we'd be as well off as they were back then.

 

Why have things improved so much (yes, improved) since the 1950's?  In 70 years of government we've had perhaps 11 socialist - Wilson, and Callaghan.  Has all this been achieved in spite of capitalism?

[dsr-burnley]

On 23/02/2023 at 06:32, ozleicester said:

Australia's banks made $33billion this year.

Shell made $57billion

BP made $40billion

Santos made $3.1billion

Woolworths made $907million

Coles made $643million

Qantas made $1.4billion in just the last 6 months.

 

But we need interest rate increases and real wage cuts

Add it all up, tax it at 100%, and there's £17 per head to share round.  Except of course that this figure is before tax.  They will pay tax on about half that profit, so there'd only be about £9 per head to share round.

 

These sound like big numbers, but when shared out among the population, it sounds a lot less.

[Bellend Sebastian]

My gas and electric bill is over 400 quid for the third month on the trot. Disappointing given that February was warmer than January, but didn't prices go up AGAIN recently?

[grobyfox1990]

39 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Fact: more people now are struggling to pay for their central heating than did in the fifties.

Fact: more people now are struggling to run their car than did in the fifties.

Fact: more people now are disappointed about having to put off retirement to 57 than did in the fifties.

Fact: people now are being forced to spend more than 90% of their income on non-food items, which is why there are so many food banks. 

 

Back in the fifties, when there was no central heating, few cars, little early retirement, and people spent less than two-thirds of their income on non-food items, we didn't have food banks or such apparent desperate poverty.  All we need do now is ditch the cars, the pensions, the heating, and of course the mobile phones and TVs and internet and foreign holidays and so forth, and we'd be as well off as they were back then.

 

Why have things improved so much (yes, improved) since the 1950's?  In 70 years of government we've had perhaps 11 socialist - Wilson, and Callaghan.  Has all this been achieved in spite of capitalism?

Yeh all good but we shouldn’t be grateful because in the last 70 years the world has made unprecedented progress and now we’re suffering. We’re in a sad place if in 2023 tax paying citizens of a first world country and sitting back thinking ‘you know what I can’t afford the heating but Pa never had any!!’

 

Shareholder capitalism undoubtedly worked in creating the world we have now, but it’s time to change, be that another form of capitalism or something else. Inequality is rife, economic metrics are all flashing red. We’re better off than we were in 1950 so let’s keep doing what we’ve always done is a weak excuse 

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh all good but we shouldn’t be grateful because in the last 70 years the world has made unprecedented progress and now we’re suffering. We’re in a sad place if in 2023 tax paying citizens of a first world country and sitting back thinking ‘you know what I can’t afford the heating but Pa never had any!!’

 

Shareholder capitalism undoubtedly worked in creating the world we have now, but it’s time to change, be that another form of capitalism or something else. Inequality is rife, economic metrics are all flashing red. We’re better off than we were in 1950 so let’s keep doing what we’ve always done is a weak excuse 

Government policy for decades has been to spend money that we haven't got.  There's only two ways to pay for that, by letting the next generation bear the burden or by letting inflation run riot to reduce the value of the debt.  Spending on the public sector costs money - to get it, we need capitalist businesses to (a) pay taxes and (b) pay wages.  Especially (b).  And if we spend too much, as we have been spending too much for many years, then the economic indicators are bound to be flashing red.

 

Capitalism is about letting people with capital use that capital to generate income.  If you don't let them generate income, then they won't spend the capital.  Obviously there need to be checks to prevent them exploiting the proletariat, but equally there need to be opportunities so the proletariat can become capitalists too.  If you don't want money, then by all means get rid of capitalism, but if you still want even the grindingly poor who can't afford food to have their phones, their cars, their internet, their holidays, then you need capitalism because nothing else will generate the cash.

[ozleicester]

4 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Add it all up, tax it at 100%, and there's £17 per head to share round.  Except of course that this figure is before tax.  They will pay tax on about half that profit, so there'd only be about £9 per head to share round.

 

These sound like big numbers, but when shared out among the population, it sounds a lot less.

Your figures are completely wrong

[ozleicester]

 

 

What's clear is that inflation is not being driven by wage increases.

The share of national income going to labour (workers) remains near a 60-year low. Conversely, the share going to capital (as profits to owners and investors) is near a 60-year high.

 

 

Edited 2 March 2023 by ozleicester

[Lako42]

Just been told my pay rise potential this year and it equates to approx a 10% pay decrease 

 

 

Happy days

[Raj]

7 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

Just been told my pay rise potential this year and it equates to approx a 10% pay decrease 

 

 

Happy days

I got 2.25% and was told to be lucky I got that...

[Daggers]

11 minutes ago, Raj said:

I got 2.25% and was told to be lucky I got that...

In which case tell them to poke the job and go somewhere you’re appreciated. Ever thought of being a male escort? I could see you doing saucy TikTok videos.

[dsr-burnley]

10 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Your figures are completely wrong

You're right.  It's $17 per head, not £17.  So that's about £14 or so, isn't it? Or are you quoting Australian dollars?

 

The $136bn comers from your figures, the 8 billion world population is pretty much accepted, the sums are right.  I presume your vague reference is to the $/£ thing?

[grobyfox1990]

10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Government policy for decades has been to spend money that we haven't got.  There's only two ways to pay for that, by letting the next generation bear the burden or by letting inflation run riot to reduce the value of the debt.  Spending on the public sector costs money - to get it, we need capitalist businesses to (a) pay taxes and (b) pay wages.  Especially (b).  And if we spend too much, as we have been spending too much for many years, then the economic indicators are bound to be flashing red.

 

Capitalism is about letting people with capital use that capital to generate income.  If you don't let them generate income, then they won't spend the capital.  Obviously there need to be checks to prevent them exploiting the proletariat, but equally there need to be opportunities so the proletariat can become capitalists too.  If you don't want money, then by all means get rid of capitalism, but if you still want even the grindingly poor who can't afford food to have their phones, their cars, their internet, their holidays, then you need capitalism because nothing else will generate the cash.

Govt debt at manageable levels is fine, it's Govt, you never have to 'pay' back your debt, just recycle it into perpetuity. The issue is debt is at a record high, yet public services are non-existent. So where has the money gone? A first world country has 2/3 of: low public debt, excellent public services, growth. We have 0/3 so it's obvious something has gone completely wrong and the 'let's keep doing what we're doing because we've all got £5 per month mobile phones!!!!' argument is weak and futile.

 

As I said above I'm not advocating all out equality, but a better and more sustainable form of capitalism is clearly and desperately needed. 

 

EDIT - pressed send too quickly.... And when the system is currently set up to hoard capital, not deploy it, the Econ 101 definition of capitalism you say above isn't relevant. UK investment figures are shameful compared to other leading nations. Yes I get it I can get a broadband contract for £20 a month and wank myself to death on free porn #progress but that doesn't outweigh Thomas Piketty's core argument

Edited 2 March 2023 by grobyfox1990
pressed enter to oquickly

[ozleicester]

46 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

You're right.  It's $17 per head, not £17.  So that's about £14 or so, isn't it? Or are you quoting Australian dollars?

 

The $136bn comers from your figures, the 8 billion world population is pretty much accepted, the sums are right.  I presume your vague reference is to the $/£ thing?

 you've given it to 8 billion  

[Stevosevic]

People have their heating on a lot don’t they  

[RobHawk]

Found out this week my pay is going up 5% in April. It was 8% last year too so am pretty happy with that especially as some of the lower paid staff are getting a slightly higher increase. 

 

It's obviously less than inflation, but I do feel like my company are doing what they can under challenging conditions atm. 

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

 you've given it to 8 billion  

Well, obviously.  You've quoted the worldwide profits of multinationals, so it's got to be compared with the worldwide population.  

[Tommy G]

I think whatever an employer does this year won't be enough. Tricky

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Govt debt at manageable levels is fine, it's Govt, you never have to 'pay' back your debt, just recycle it into perpetuity. The issue is debt is at a record high, yet public services are non-existent. So where has the money gone? A first world country has 2/3 of: low public debt, excellent public services, growth. We have 0/3 so it's obvious something has gone completely wrong and the 'let's keep doing what we're doing because we've all got £5 per month mobile phones!!!!' argument is weak and futile.

 

As I said above I'm not advocating all out equality, but a better and more sustainable form of capitalism is clearly and desperately needed. 

I agree that something has gone wrong, but I don't think it's the capitalists' fault.  Government spending and debt is way too high, that's clearly the government's decision making that has done that; public services are poor even though the state has 5.5m employees, and that must surely be the government's fault.  As for growth, high taxes and significant government interference must hinder growth so again, the government's fingers are in the pie again.  We need smaller government.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I agree that something has gone wrong, but I don't think it's the capitalists' fault.  Government spending and debt is way too high, that's clearly the government's decision making that has done that; public services are poor even though the state has 5.5m employees, and that must surely be the government's fault.  As for growth, high taxes and significant government interference must hinder growth so again, the government's fingers are in the pie again. We need smaller government.

I'm going to be honest, places where there are "smaller" governments (like Somalia) aren't exactly doing brilliantly right now either.

[dsr-burnley]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm going to be honest, places where there are "smaller" governments (like Somalia) aren't exactly doing brilliantly right now either.

But big government places like Ivory Coast and North Korea aren't doing so well either.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

But big government places like Ivory Coast and North Korea aren't doing so well either.

Right, so the solution becomes where to place the balance.

 

And we could find examples of both countries with more of a slant towards command economies and ones with "freer" markets weathering the storm better than most, which indicates it isn't the only variable of import here.

 

Mises and the Austrian School can piss off, though.

[Mickyblueeyes]

39 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I think whatever an employer does this year won't be enough. Tricky

Yep. We are feeling this too. Rock and hard place come to mind. 

[ozleicester]

44 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Well, obviously.  You've quoted the worldwide profits of multinationals, so it's got to be compared with the worldwide population.  

  10 companies with less than 1 years profit... just laughable....but understandable  

[kenny]

2 hours ago, Stevosevic said:

People have their heating on a lot don’t they  

Not any more!

 

Its the 1st of March, so it officially gets turned off until October!