The cult of home ownership is dangerous and damaging

Housing is the flagship policy to protect the landowners.  The government's main objective is to put more money into the pockets of the rich.  This money is taken from the masses either through home prices or rents.  The UK has one of the highest price - to - income ratios in the civilised worlds.

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.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/00bf5968-f518-11e2-b4f8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aJrOFHJL

UK drops plan for plain cigarette packs

Ridiculous debate, on two accounts:
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.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9e88c622-eac6-11e2-9fcc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2YqcvhEET

Britain’s welfare state can be cheaper and popular

The "fairness" rethoric of the benefits cuts is highly effective.  It is absurd to get money for nothing, but the abuses of the wellfare system are a) not properly documented and hence not the biggest drain on Britain's deficit, and b) not a reason to drop the atomic bomb on social protection.
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.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/140ea9bc-9b93-11e2-8485-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2POaCrE9v

A convincing story can restore growth

The Tory duo is convinced stubborness equals credibility. But they are wrong. Determination and measured progress in strategy implementation is likely to sustain the credibility gained through clarity and soundness in its formulation.

Their refusal to adapt the course to proof the infamous plan A was an arrogant imposition on a tolerant, naive country is more than ridiculous, it is harmful too. In their infatuation Dave and George cornered themselves into political cul de sacs such as there is no alternative and A ratings. How dare they say they know best and Britain can have no better leaders?

The latest Budget is once again a proof they are only protecting land owners and big business.

The corporate tax cut is only encouraging profit building and cash piling to the delight of company bosses who are given a pay rise without raising a finger (through eps linked compensation).  The companies need to be forced to increase their effective tax rates and invest sooner and more into the economy, i.e. give cash to taxpayers or to growth. 

The housing "policy" is nothing but stinky smoke. The land owners are rubbing hands as the right to be indebted up to the ears programs are going to drive up house prices. The public is incredibly dormant when it comes to the lack of supply initiatives. All efforts are put into funnelling taxpayers' money into supporting demand for houses. It doesn't matter if these are obsolete, inefficient and overvalued. The government policy is avoid building at all costs. Except for the luxury segment of course, they need to make sure there is enough accomodation for the wealthy.

The rest is equally feeble. Britain needs roads and transport hubs to breathe and be more efficient. London is the only civilised mega city with one ring road only and no decent airport, and offering an archaic, fragmented and unaffordable public transport systems.

Britain has the unfortunate habit of displaying posh politicians speaking with impeccable accents, using skillfully all tricks of public communications and waggling the finger at audiences on everything from immigration to bank bonuses to working hours. Invoking the "we are British hence we should be listened to because we are always right and we know better" mantra must have its shelf life like anything else. Hopefully succombing soon to the harsh reality that Britain's leaders are a bunch of losers.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09662f28-9222-11e2-851f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ONg5IGaw

Only one in three wants UK to stay in EU

This poll tells us the public doesnt really care about the EU.  And the main issues are foreigners, whether it is about who gets in, or who must leave.

It also shows that fanatic campaigns about immigrants coming in by truck load to steal British jobs or chewing gum from convenience stores have been very successful. 

While the people who had the biggest negative impact over the taxpayer and its living standards are mostly indigenous, wear suits and large smiles on their faces, the average Briton is convinced its fortunes are hampered by the occasional foreign-born strawberry picker or plumber.

The Brits are also appalled that British judges cannot eject radical clerics who instigate the youth. 

Not trying to minimize the importance of these issues, but are these serious and large enough to determine a rupture with the EU?

The Brits want to be able to open up a pub in Malaga or run an advertising agency in Prague, don't want to deliver their pizzas but don't want anyone to come in, period. 

Interestingly, it shows Britons don't really tell us they would like to be fired more easily, work longer hours and have their benefits or employer pension arrangements further sacrificed on the altar of a Brussels-free, free-market economy.

So Mr Cameron has cornered himself into a tough one: he cannot be honest about why the EU is not that bad, he cannot distroy the immigration myths without losing votes, and he must hold the referendum.  He is thus poised to fall on his sword.  And all that, in the name of what? 

2nd note:
The PM is either dishonest or not sharp.  If he wants to stay in the EU why did he put himself on a course of leaving it, with the only (short-term) benefit of MP chanting at Westminster, instead of showing manhood and explain it to us why prejudice and myth-building is bad for the country?  If he actually wants to leave the EU, he should move on Shaftesbury Avenue form Downing Street though I don't think he would be a sold-out every night.
softcapitalist.blogspot.co.uk

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb2057fc-7917-11e2-b4df-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2LEuUjChP

Amazon unpacked

If only Britain were not in the EU, forced to comply with its onerous directives... Supervisors could actually use the whip!  That would help with intensity. 


The triumph of capital and class society after the greatest mass swindle in recent history, aka the financial crisis.  Well done Eton boys.
softcapitalist.blogspot.co.uk

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ed6a985c-70bd-11e2-85d0-00144feab49a.html#slide2

Home loan boom fails to lift ownership

Failure.  Or lack of housing policy?  While the world acclaims the Nordic Folkhemmet for its merits to offer high standard affordable homes for most of the citizens (even if it moved away from the leftist approach of the 70's) Britain is a case study in the other direction.
British politicians of all political colors have bowed to the pressure from privileged groups and allowed through irresponsible planning legislation, hapless infrastructure strategies and preferential investment models, all nicely sold to the public as "free market orientation", to strangulate the housing market and to drastically lower the standards of living.

The mortgage lenders, land owners and estate agents benefited nicely, along with some private landlords.  The tenants were forced to accept ever rising rents and live in places that too often cannot be called a home.  The statistics fail to look at price per sqm and even if these are among the highest in the civilized world, the quality of accommodation is depressing.

The government should redevelop large swathes of the most densley polulated cities against nymbist protests, build new residential complexes following Scandinavian architectural models and impose housing standards.  It is beyond belief that the "supply and demand" forces people to live below the pavement line or in "conversions" where a bathroom is squeezed in a former closet or bedrooms are set in "rooms" measuring less than 5sqm.

Why is it OK to build a 6 storey residential building if each flat fetches £ millions but it would destroy the borough's character if it were priced at £250,000? 

Old and obsolete parts of London should be forced through property tax to modernize and increase accomodation capacity thus releasing pressure from expanding sprawling and unaffordable infrastructure, and increasing supply of homes.  New built homes should raise the standards so that existing landlords would need to improve the buy-to-let properties or find a less speculative source of income. 

Ultimately it doesn't matter if people own or rent where they live, as long as they have enough space, at good standards and they do not to spend all their disposable income on paying for it.  If in addition to that they afford going to work, and this does not take 2h each way in humiliating conditions, even better.

The next task is to ensure people do not pay whatever they are left for their children's care and education, but that would mean to improve the social mobility in Britain, and this seems to be unacceptable to governments.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e621b64e-713e-11e2-9056-00144feab49a.html#axzz2KJSI9lrq