FPT: @NigelB - Just to be clear, I am absolutely in favour of gun control. I find the US approach bizarre.
I don't oppose people arguing for the right to bear arms to see the consequences of that - what a gun does to a body. Except that is not what is ever shown on TV. Just the grief. And it feels to me distasteful to show grief in the way that we do. It rarely aids understanding and it makes me feel like a voyeur in a way that I don't like. Nor do I like my emotions manipulated by the way that some stories are presented.
But my real issue was the way that incidents in the US become big news stories here when really they are not relevant to the UK at all and there are stories that we are not being told about what happens in other European countries, let alone in Asia or Africa, which are or may be more relevant. Sometimes it seems to me we get news from the US because that's where the journalists are rather than because they are the most important stories.
It's because we share a language. Spanish news has lots on South America for example.
We share a language with most of Africa and India and Australia and NZ and Canada and lots of other places besides. We don't get anything like the same amount of news from those places.
I miss the days when papers and the BBC had proper correspondents in France and Italy and other European countries. David Willey in Italy used to write superb articles about Italy for instance. We've had endless stuff about the EU, most of it from a position of ignorance, and yet we are remarkably poorly informed about politics and life generally, including culture, in our near neighbours. Yet some appalling shooting in the middle of nowhere in US can be the lead story. It is appalling and horrible but its impact on us is, frankly, zero. If tragedy was the test we'd have Indian railway accidents as lead stories far more often than we do.
The newspapers don't have the money to employ foreign correspondents and more, and the BBC has had to cut many of theirs. Much of what we read is recycled, and the US produces a lot of news, in English.
As for buying housebuilders right now - November 11th notwithstanding, that really is doing your duty.
They are priced for Armageddon, yet are generating cash like crazy, and no government is going to want housebuilding to slow down. The market has hugely overreacted to a slight easing off in the market, IMO - especially as there isn't much easing-off outside London. A Brexit deal would mean an immediate boost to confidence both amongst buyers and in stock market sentiment for the sector, and the two will reinforce each other.
Of course if the deal isn't agreed or gets torpedoed by any unholy alliance of Umunna, Vince, Corbyn, Rees Mogg and Peter Bone, then the investment won't look so good (in the short term at least). But in that scenario the pound will crash and the foreign holdings will more than compensate.
Or, to put it another way: the pound is going to shift sharply either up or down, and UK-focused stocks are going either to soar or slump relative to international stocks (in sterling terms). You need to be positioned for either scenario.
[This is not investment advice etc etc!]
Straight from the midterms into the housebuilders. You're a gambling man, Richard !
I do wonder if the wall of silence from no 10 is as much to do with not overshadowing the Armistice Day commemorations, TM joint appearance with Macron, and other commitments she has got this weekend.
I believe we are likely to see movement next week to the deal with a take it or leave it option to the HOC
Big_G, your loyalty to your Party and your Leader is touching, but totally misplaced IMO. She appears to be completely out of her depth and is leading a bunch of talentless non-entities from shambles to disaster.
FPT: @NigelB - Just to be clear, I am absolutely in favour of gun control. I find the US approach bizarre.
I don't oppose people arguing for the right to bear arms to see the consequences of that - what a gun does to a body. Except that is not what is ever shown on TV. Just the grief. And it feels to me distasteful to show grief in the way that we do. It rarely aids understanding and it makes me feel like a voyeur in a way that I don't like. Nor do I like my emotions manipulated by the way that some stories are presented.
But my real issue was the way that incidents in the US become big news stories here when really they are not relevant to the UK at all and there are stories that we are not being told about what happens in other European countries, let alone in Asia or Africa, which are or may be more relevant. Sometimes it seems to me we get news from the US because that's where the journalists are rather than because they are the most important stories.
Fair enough. "because that's where the journalists are"... true.
So did I. But many business people seem to have a touching faith in May which is entirely misplaced, perhaps because they have become so used to governments always taking a pro-business position that they cannot conceive of one that deliberately sets out to trash the economy.
I was at a presentation by a well known city fund manager earlier in the week. He gravely opined that May was doing her best, the Chequers deal was not perfect but would provide considerable comfort. The fact that Chequers is more dead than the fabled parrot seems to have completely passed him by.
A lot of people are in for a nasty shock in the next few weeks IMO.
The 'well known city fund manager' is right. There's an awful lot of noise around, for example the absurd synthetic indignation about something Dominic Raab phrased slightly imperfectly, and lots of politicians grandstanding in contradictory directions, and lots of people like you hoping it will all be a disaster, but one needs to look through all that.
Now's the time to buy domestically-focused UK stocks, IMO. In fact I've have just done exactly that - Lloyds Bank, housebuilders, funds like Marlborough UK Microcap Growth. Once we get a deal, which looks imminent, there's likely to be a quite large relief rally.
[This is not investment advice, etc etc!]
Did he phrase it slightly imperfectly? Didn't sound it to me. Seemed quite clear. Also it seemed quite clear that his reference to JIT was to do with ensuring stuff that goes off quickly gets delivered in time. It isn't. It has nothing to do with it. That is very worrying for all those that rely on JIT.
Dominic Raab is a lawyer, and with the greatest of respect to some at least of the lawyers here, doesn’t seem to have ever had a job where he had to think about the way his coffee got to him.
Does the original tweetee not know what the RBL do?
What does he think poppy money goes towards?
That’s a racist question.....
The original tweeter when not smashing up banks runs fake news site novara media.
It seems these days to be a somebody in the corbynista movement you have to have a criminal record, not be keen on Jews and be a total f##kin moron. Owen Jones is of course defending this guy.
I thought it sounded exactly like something Rik from the Young Ones would have said.
Does the original tweetee not know what the RBL do?
What does he think poppy money goes towards?
That’s a racist question.....
The original tweeter when not smashing up banks runs fake news site novara media.
It seems these days to be a somebody in the corbynista movement you have to have a criminal record, not be keen on Jews and be a total f##kin moron. Owen Jones is of course defending this guy.
I thought it sounded exactly like something Rik from the Young Ones would have said.
For comic effect, though.....
Just think, these are the sort of people jezza wants to fund to encourage better journalism...
The problem is affordability or profitability, depending on which side of the front door you are.
There is plenty of housing going up atm. People are looking to permitted development and CLTs because no one can afford the flats going up round the corner.
That is why I wouldn't be buying even at these multiples right now.
If 'no one can afford' what the housebuilders are building, how come Bovis just announced profits up 41% in the latest half year, with rising numbers of completions, and how did Galliford Try's Linden Homes increase completions from 3,296 to 3,442 year on year?
The London-focused high-end builders like Berkeley are more of a risk (although arguably one worth taking), but get out into the wilds beyond the M25, and the house market is fairly healthy.
Sure, things might slow down a bit, but the valuations are more than pricing that in already. And if there's a Brexit deal, things won't slow down, they'll accelerate.
The problem is affordability or profitability, depending on which side of the front door you are.
There is plenty of housing going up atm. People are looking to permitted development and CLTs because no one can afford the flats going up round the corner.
That is why I wouldn't be buying even at these multiples right now.
If 'no one can afford' what the housebuilders are building, how come Bovis just announced profits up 41% in the latest half year, with rising numbers of completions, and how did Galliford Try's Linden Homes increase completions from 3,296 to 3,442 year on year?
The London-focused high-end builders like Berkeley are more of a risk (although arguably one worth taking), but get out into the wilds beyond the M25, and the house market is fairly healthy.
Sure, things might slow down a bit, but the valuations are more than pricing that in already. And if there's a Brexit deal, things won't slow down, they'll accelerate.
The problem is affordability or profitability, depending on which side of the front door you are.
There is plenty of housing going up atm. People are looking to permitted development and CLTs because no one can afford the flats going up round the corner.
That is why I wouldn't be buying even at these multiples right now.
If 'no one can afford' what the housebuilders are building, how come Bovis just announced profits up 41% in the latest half year, with rising numbers of completions, and how did Galliford Try's Linden Homes increase completions from 3,296 to 3,442 year on year?
The London-focused high-end builders like Berkeley are more of a risk (although arguably one worth taking), but get out into the wilds beyond the M25, and the house market is fairly healthy.
Sure, things might slow down a bit, but the valuations are more than pricing that in already. And if there's a Brexit deal, things won't slow down, they'll accelerate.
Good luck!
Thanks. You'll be relieved to know that I am avoiding retailers!
Interesting. I am also on Rivaroxaban after recently getting diagnosed as having blood clots on my lungs after a CT scan. I am glad that the NHS got them at a decent price.
Memo Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980
As for buying housebuilders right now - November 11th notwithstanding, that really is doing your duty.
They are priced for Armageddon, yet are generating cash like crazy, and no government is going to want housebuilding to slow down. The market has hugely overreacted to a slight easing off in the market, IMO - especially as there isn't much easing-off outside London. A Brexit deal would mean an immediate boost to confidence both amongst buyers and in stock market sentiment for the sector, and the two will reinforce each other.
Of course if the deal isn't agreed or gets torpedoed by any unholy alliance of Umunna, Vince, Corbyn, Rees Mogg and Peter Bone, then the investment won't look so good (in the short term at least). But in that scenario the pound will crash and the foreign holdings will more than compensate.
Or, to put it another way: the pound is going to shift sharply either up or down, and UK-focused stocks are going either to soar or slump relative to international stocks (in sterling terms). You need to be positioned for either scenario.
[This is not investment advice etc etc!]
The problem is affordability or profitability, depending on which side of the front door you are.
There is plenty of housing going up atm. People are looking to permitted development and CLTs because no one can afford the flats going up round the corner.
That is why I wouldn't be buying even at these multiples right now.
In my area population growth is slow if not static, yet we have house getting built as fast as they can sell them, and these seem expensive for the area. We are a low wage area, low unemployment, service related. But we are getting 600+ completions with 30% affordable homes per year , in an area with only 60,000 homes in total and it’s not going away any time soon. 10,000 homes have been allocated in the council local plan and the builders have no trouble shifting them.
Memo Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980
Totally against.
Totally for. Never before has the world become so rich, have so many people had so much. The economic trading system around the planet has eradicated natural famine, despite never having so many mouths to feed. The world has never been better than it is now, there’s never been a better time to be alive.
But my real issue was the way that incidents in the US become big news stories here when really they are not relevant to the UK at all and there are stories that we are not being told about what happens in other European countries, let alone in Asia or Africa, which are or may be more relevant. Sometimes it seems to me we get news from the US because that's where the journalists are rather than because they are the most important stories.
Also trivial facts like the US being our largest foreign market, our largest foreign investor, our most successful former colony, the world's superpower and that it contributes more to our security than every other foreign country combined. It has an influence on our mass culture incomparably more than anywhere else, because of shared language, ancestry and history.
Also it is incredibly open with its politics and current affairs, in the way that China, say, isn't.
But my real issue was the way that incidents in the US become big news stories here when really they are not relevant to the UK at all and there are stories that we are not being told about what happens in other European countries, let alone in Asia or Africa, which are or may be more relevant. Sometimes it seems to me we get news from the US because that's where the journalists are rather than because they are the most important stories.
Also trivial facts like the US being our largest foreign market, our largest foreign investor, our most successful former colony, the world's superpower and that it contributes more to our security than every other foreign country combined.
Also it is incredibly open with its politics and current affairs, in the way that China, say, isn't.
Not only economic super power, but cultural. The major us Tv show and movies are watched worldwide.
Memo Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980
Totally against.
Totally for. Never before has the world become so rich, have so many people had so much. The economic trading system around the planet has eradicated natural famine, despite never having so many mouths to feed. The world has never been better than it is now, there’s never been a better time to be alive.
Much as some might wish it, this isn't a yes/no question. The reality is that liberal economics has the potential to deliver significant benefits but also tends towards oligopolistic anti-competition and inequality of wealth. Thus it needs heavily tempering by benign state (and increasingly multi-state, hence the futility of Brexit) intervention.
As for buying housebuilders right now - November 11th notwithstanding, that really is doing your duty.
They are priced for Armageddon, yet are generating cash like crazy, and no government is going to want housebuilding to slow down. The market has hugely overreacted to a slight easing off in the market, IMO - especially as there isn't much easing-off outside London. A Brexit deal would mean an immediate boost to confidence both amongst buyers and in stock market sentiment for the sector, and the two will reinforce each other.
Of course if the deal isn't agreed or gets torpedoed by any unholy alliance of Umunna, Vince, Corbyn, Rees Mogg and Peter Bone, then the investment won't look so good (in the short term at least). But in that scenario the pound will crash and the foreign holdings will more than compensate.
Or, to put it another way: the pound is going to shift sharply either up or down, and UK-focused stocks are going either to soar or slump relative to international stocks (in sterling terms). You need to be positioned for either scenario.
[This is not investment advice etc etc!]
I am not so convinced. Brexit doesn't come too much into it btw.
Consumer debt is high, loads of houses beig built or permissions granted, interest rates look like increasing soon, bigger deposits wanted. It all looks a bit 2007 to me. The retail closures pre Christmas and reductions in car sales speak to me of trouble ahead too.
I still have some housebuilders in my ISA, but fewer than a year ago.
I do wonder if the wall of silence from no 10 is as much to do with not overshadowing the Armistice Day commemorations, TM joint appearance with Macron, and other commitments she has got this weekend.
I believe we are likely to see movement next week to the deal with a take it or leave it option to the HOC
Big_G, your loyalty to your Party and your Leader is touching, but totally misplaced IMO. She appears to be completely out of her depth and is leading a bunch of talentless non-entities from shambles to disaster.
Not that Labour is much better
It is not a question of loyaly to my party or leader but a very practical explanation of why nothing is happening this weekend.
This year is the 100 year centenary and to many of us it is a time to remember people like my grandfather who, despite being seriously wounded, led his men to safety but ultimately died of his injuries and my Uncle Jim who lost his arm when a shell took out the lintel of the farmhouse he was fighting from. It is a time to remember and put politics on one side
I am not without critism of TM but she is the one who inherited the poisoned chalice and is doing her best to get a deal. The whole political class are a shambles including the labour party, together with the media and many who seem clueless on all sides of the argument
Interesting. I am also on Rivaroxaban after recently getting diagnosed as having blood clots on my lungs after a CT scan. I am glad that the NHS got them at a decent price.
Get a good supply of plasters and cotton wool in because when you cut yourself it takes a long time to stop the bleeding.
I am not so convinced. Brexit doesn't come too much into it btw.
Consumer debt is high, loads of hoises beig built or permissions granted, interest rates look like increasing soon, bigger deposits wanted. It all looks a bit 2007 to me. The retail closures pre Christmas and reductions in car sales speak to me of trouble ahead too.
I still have some housebuilders in my ISA, but fewer than a year ago.
In 2007 housebuilders were hugely in debt, so rapidly got into trouble when the downturn came. Now they have lashings of net cash - which is extraordinary for such capital-intensive businesses.
@Richard_Nabavi You're better off buying shares in a housebuilder than buying a house from them. Just checked the "Eynsham" behind the Morrisons at Halfway.
£306,000 for 88 sq metres of house and a postage stamp garden is almost beyond belief round here ! Alternatively you can part with £200k for a 53 sq metre semi 3 up, 2 down. My last house was around this size and I bought and sold for around half that.
The prices are crazy ! I can only conclude the sales staff must be practised in hypnosis.
Is help to buy going to come to an end any time soon - that's the only reason I can see the prices of these hovels being as they are.
@Richard_Nabavi You're better off buying shares in a housebuilder than buying a house from them. Just checked the "Eynsham" behind the Morrisons at Halfway.
£306,000 for 88 sq metres of house and a postage stamp garden is almost beyond beleif round here ! Alternatively you can part with £200k for a 53 sq metre semi 3 up, 2 down. My last house was around this size and I bought and sold for around half that.
The prices are crazy !
It’s ok, a few years of jezza and that will only be about a weeks wages.
Memo Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980
Just throw in Workhouses and you'd have a perfect economic and social policy platform.
I am not so convinced. Brexit doesn't come too much into it btw.
Consumer debt is high, loads of hoises beig built or permissions granted, interest rates look like increasing soon, bigger deposits wanted. It all looks a bit 2007 to me. The retail closures pre Christmas and reductions in car sales speak to me of trouble ahead too.
I still have some housebuilders in my ISA, but fewer than a year ago.
In 2007 housebuilders were hugely in debt, so rapidly got into trouble when the downturn came. Now they have lashings of net cash - which is extraordinary for such capital-intensive businesses.
Housebuilders are pretty heavily geared on the general economy, but while potentially contrarian investing can be lucrative, housebuilders do not look cheap to me.
Interesting. I am also on Rivaroxaban after recently getting diagnosed as having blood clots on my lungs after a CT scan. I am glad that the NHS got them at a decent price.
Get a good supply of plasters and cotton wool in because when you cut yourself it takes a long time to stop the bleeding.
The list of side effects from these little pills show the problems pharma face more than anything. They range from death to a whole series of more serious conditions and in are in various categories of frequency.
So far little of this has come to pass but it was an interesting read.
It is a great shame. But we will have to get on with it. I do think that creating even more opportunities for resentment / humiliation etc is a very bad move, from whoever it comes. European history should have taught British and European politicians that much, at least. It is a lesson they seem intent on ignoring.
Two things work together to make the biggest contradiction of Brexit: 1. The UK practically cannot do without a close relationship with the EU, which will be on the EU's terms. 2. The EU isn't interested in a partnership of equals with the UK. That contradiction is the UK's problem, not the EU's who have no stake in minimising that contradiction. If you need the partnership and it's not one of equals, you have to accept the partnership of unequals. As Brexit was premised on "taking control", we have an entirely predictable problem.
Absolutely true. But no. 2 is a choice not the result of some law of nature.
My question is: is it entirely wise of the EU to take the attitude they are taking? I am not arguing for Britain to get everything it wants like some Brexiteers. I am simply saying that given Britain's position and its history and the history of Europe and the advantages of having a good relationship it may be wise to look to have a partnership which is something between a partnership of identical equals and one which says "we're bigger than you and we'll use that power", regardless of the consequences.
Failing to think of the long-term seems to me to be a failing which could come back and bite both us and the EU on the bum in what is an uncertain and unstable world.
In short, I think the EU does have a stake - or ought to, for its own sake - in minimising that contradiction to a much greater extent than it is seeking to do. Nothing is forever and nothing is inevitable. The march of history - which the EU seems to think will march in its direction for ever - has a nasty habit of taking some very unexpected turns.
How would you frame your suggestion in terms of practical actions?
Interesting. I am also on Rivaroxaban after recently getting diagnosed as having blood clots on my lungs after a CT scan. I am glad that the NHS got them at a decent price.
Get a good supply of plasters and cotton wool in because when you cut yourself it takes a long time to stop the bleeding.
The list of side effects from these little pills show the problems pharma face more than anything. They range from death to a whole series of more serious conditions and in are in various categories of frequency.
So far little of this has come to pass but it was an interesting read.
If you start to read Drug Data Sheets you wouldn't take anything! Rivaroxaban is a lot better than Warfarin, and safer too it seems:
Memo Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980
Just throw in Workhouses and you'd have a perfect economic and social policy platform.
Is there ever a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally to states rather than on a flat two-per-state basis?
Currently, there is one US Senator for every 18.6m Californian voters and one per 0.3m Wyoming voters. Hardly fair.
The founding fathers fixed it that way so the urban areas would not dominate the rural areas. Far sighted.
Yes, I know that. But it doesn't answer my question.
I assume a change would require a constitutional amendment which, oh wait, requires a 2/3rd majority in the House and the Senate and has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. So, tricky...
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep. Prescription drugs account for somewhere around 10% of US healthcare spending. Assuming a hugely over-ambitious 50% cut, it would barely make a dent in healthcare costs (though clearly would make a big difference in individual cases).
Healthcare in the US is a mess, and addressing that systematically would deal with the drug pricing problem at the same time. Won't happen, of course, and pharmas are a relatively easy target.
The unintended consequence would quite likely be the acceleration of the current slow migration of drug development to Asia.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
@Richard_Nabavi You're better off buying shares in a housebuilder than buying a house from them. Just checked the "Eynsham" behind the Morrisons at Halfway.
£306,000 for 88 sq metres of house and a postage stamp garden is almost beyond belief round here ! Alternatively you can part with £200k for a 53 sq metre semi 3 up, 2 down. My last house was around this size and I bought and sold for around half that.
The prices are crazy ! I can only conclude the sales staff must be practised in hypnosis.
Is help to buy going to come to an end any time soon - that's the only reason I can see the prices of these hovels being as they are.
It's due to easy credit too. My parents bought their first house in 1956 for £500 (equiv. to £20,000 now). I think they saved up for 3-4 years and my mother's parents gave them the other £200.
If we want to return to that sort of pricing, we have to ration lending and build more. Banks would hate the idea of going back to credit rationing. Bigger loans create money out of thin air which generates higher profits for the board and shareholders.
Is there ever a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally to states rather than on a flat two-per-state basis?
Currently, there is one US Senator for every 18.6m Californian voters and one per 0.3m Wyoming voters. Hardly fair.
Yes. It’s called the House of Representatives.
Exactly. California has 53 House Of Representatives seats and 55 Electoral College votes to just 1 House of Representative seat and 3 Electoral College votes for Wyoming
Is there ever a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally to states rather than on a flat two-per-state basis?
Currently, there is one US Senator for every 18.6m Californian voters and one per 0.3m Wyoming voters. Hardly fair.
The founding fathers fixed it that way so the urban areas would not dominate the rural areas. Far sighted.
Yes, I know that. But it doesn't answer my question.
I assume a change would require a constitutional amendment which, oh wait, requires a 2/3rd majority in the House and the Senate and has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. So, tricky...
Indeed it's never going to happen nor should it. It is a feature not a bug, the House of Representatives gets roughly equal weightings due to population, the Senate gets equal weightings per state. Its a deliberate design and smaller states have no reason to let California trump federation.
So that's 350 million a week to buy fridges and stockpile medicines. Brexit bonus for the NHS
A small one time cost
People forget that the reason Thatcher was able to defeat the miners strike was because the government had been stockpiling coal. Stockpiling works when its organised.
Tue pm: Barnier says it is the same crap he has heard a thousand times.
Indeed. Agreement will only be reached when the UK accepts the indefinite backstop without a unilateral get out. And large portions of humble pie will have to be forced down by many proud ministers before we get to that stage.
The Government and EU seem likely to agree an arbitration panel will resolve the Irish border issue with a Customs Union for the whole UK until then and Cox has approved it
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep. Prescription drugs account for somewhere around 10% of US healthcare spending. Assuming a hugely over-ambitious 50% cut, it would barely make a dent in healthcare costs (though clearly would make a big difference in individual cases).
Healthcare in the US is a mess, and addressing that systematically would deal with the drug pricing problem at the same time. Won't happen, of course, and pharmas are a relatively easy target.
The unintended consequence would quite likely be the acceleration of the current slow migration of drug development to Asia.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
I don’t think you understand my point at all. The political effort required to reduce US drug prices by 50% would be mammoth - not something you can just bank as ‘an individual saving’. And would do nothing for the rest of the problem.
Is there ever a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally to states rather than on a flat two-per-state basis?
Currently, there is one US Senator for every 18.6m Californian voters and one per 0.3m Wyoming voters. Hardly fair.
The States are the foundation of the USA, not the individuals who inhabit the territory. Equal representation in the Senate recognises their sovereignty and gives a measure of protection to the small states from domination by their larger neighbours.
Is there ever a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally to states rather than on a flat two-per-state basis?
Currently, there is one US Senator for every 18.6m Californian voters and one per 0.3m Wyoming voters. Hardly fair.
The founding fathers fixed it that way so the urban areas would not dominate the rural areas. Far sighted.
So fields get representation in the Senate.
So soverign autonomous states get a guarantee that they have equal weighting as a condition of federalising...
So that made sense for the original 13 states who federalised in the 18th century but when the Territory of Wyoming became a state in 1890, what sovreignty was it giving up?
Anyway, I think my original question is answered... there's never likely to a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally.
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep. Prescription drugs account for somewhere around 10% of US healthcare spending. Assuming a hugely over-ambitious 50% cut, it would barely make a dent in healthcare costs (though clearly would make a big difference in individual cases).
Healthcare in the US is a mess, and addressing that systematically would deal with the drug pricing problem at the same time. Won't happen, of course, and pharmas are a relatively easy target.
The unintended consequence would quite likely be the acceleration of the current slow migration of drug development to Asia.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
The other aspect is who pays. While other healthcare costs are usually covered by either insurance or government Medicare, often prescriptiond are paid for directly by the patient as a co-payment.
Is there ever a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally to states rather than on a flat two-per-state basis?
Currently, there is one US Senator for every 18.6m Californian voters and one per 0.3m Wyoming voters. Hardly fair.
The founding fathers fixed it that way so the urban areas would not dominate the rural areas. Far sighted.
So fields get representation in the Senate.
So soverign autonomous states get a guarantee that they have equal weighting as a condition of federalising...
So that made sense for the original 13 states who federalised in the 18th century but when the Territory of Wyoming became a state in 1890, what sovreignty was it giving up?
Anyway, I think my original question is answered... there's never likely to a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally.
I guess you could ask what is the point of having states entirely!
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep. Prescription drugs account for somewhere around 10% of US healthcare spending. Assuming a hugely over-ambitious 50% cut, it would barely make a dent in healthcare costs (though clearly would make a big difference in individual cases).
Healthcare in the US is a mess, and addressing that systematically would deal with the drug pricing problem at the same time. Won't happen, of course, and pharmas are a relatively easy target.
The unintended consequence would quite likely be the acceleration of the current slow migration of drug development to Asia.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
Of course that 1% of GDP would, um, impact GDP by 1% if it were no longer spent.
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep. Prescription drugs account for somewhere around 10% of US healthcare spending. Assuming a hugely over-ambitious 50% cut, it would barely make a dent in healthcare costs (though clearly would make a big difference in individual cases).
Healthcare in the US is a mess, and addressing that systematically would deal with the drug pricing problem at the same time. Won't happen, of course, and pharmas are a relatively easy target.
The unintended consequence would quite likely be the acceleration of the current slow migration of drug development to Asia.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
I don’t think you understand my point at all. The political effort required to reduce US drug prices by 50% would be mammoth - not something you can just bank as ‘an individual saving’. And would do nothing for the rest of the problem.
I'm not failing to get your point I get it and completely refute it as incorrect. It's that attitude that allows spending to get out of control.
The political effort to get anything done is absolutely mammoth and fixing a problem that is equivalent to 1% of GDP is mammoth not minuscule. Whether it does anything for the rest of the problem is neither here nor there.
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep. Prescription drugs account for somewhere around 10% of US healthcare spending. Assuming a hugely over-ambitious 50% cut, it would barely make a dent in healthcare costs (though clearly would make a big difference in individual cases).
Healthcare in the US is a mess, and addressing that systematically would deal with the drug pricing problem at the same time. Won't happen, of course, and pharmas are a relatively easy target.
The unintended consequence would quite likely be the acceleration of the current slow migration of drug development to Asia.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
The other aspect is who pays. While other healthcare costs are usually covered by either insurance or government Medicare, often prescriptiond are paid for directly by the patient as a co-payment.
I was talking to the director of a US medical school a while back about the massive cost of US healthcare. He pointed out to me that the 17% of GDP spent in the US on healthcare is not lost to the economy, it just circulates back round into the economy.
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep. Prescription drugs account for somewhere around 10% of US healthcare spending. Assuming a hugely over-ambitious 50% cut, it would barely make a dent in healthcare costs (though clearly would make a big difference in individual cases).
Healthcare in the US is a mess, and addressing that systematically would deal with the drug pricing problem at the same time. Won't happen, of course, and pharmas are a relatively easy target.
The unintended consequence would quite likely be the acceleration of the current slow migration of drug development to Asia.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
The other aspect is who pays. While other healthcare costs are usually covered by either insurance or government Medicare, often prescriptiond are paid for directly by the patient as a co-payment.
I was talking to the director of a US medical school a while back about the massive cost of US healthcare. He pointed out to me that the 17% of GDP spent in the US on healthcare is not lost to the economy, it just circulates back round into the economy.
Seemed plausible but I'm no economist.
All expenditure "circulates back round into the economy" (except on imports). It still means that 17% of US national income is spent on healthcare with no better outcomes than countries that only spend 9% of their national income on healthcare. Your US medical school director is trying to bamboozle you.
So just like in North Carolina upon losing the governor race the GOP controlled assembly is simply going to remove all the governors powers.
Truly an astounding country.
h ttps://twitter.com/patrickdmarley/status/1060301509584404480?s=19
America is very rapidly losing any right to call itself a democracy. And Trump is a symbol of, rather than a causal factor in, this.
It honestly feels like many Republicans are still bitter about how Nixon and Nixon administration officials were treated and absolutely furious that Clinton made Bush Snr a one term president. It seems like American has been suffering a 40 year revenge fantasy.
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep. Prescription drugs account for somewhere around 10% of US healthcare spending. Assuming a hugely over-ambitious 50% cut, it would barely make a dent in healthcare costs (though clearly would make a big difference in individual cases).
Healthcare in the US is a mess, and addressing that systematically would deal with the drug pricing problem at the same time. Won't happen, of course, and pharmas are a relatively easy target.
The unintended consequence would quite likely be the acceleration of the current slow migration of drug development to Asia.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
The other aspect is who pays. While other healthcare costs are usually covered by either insurance or government Medicare, often prescriptiond are paid for directly by the patient as a co-payment.
I was talking to the director of a US medical school a while back about the massive cost of US healthcare. He pointed out to me that the 17% of GDP spent in the US on healthcare is not lost to the economy, it just circulates back round into the economy.
Seemed plausible but I'm no economist.
All expenditure "circulates back round into the economy" (except on imports). It still means that 17% of US national income is spent on healthcare with no better outcomes than countries that only spend 9% of their national income on healthcare. Your US medical school director is trying to bamboozle you.
No he wasn't trying to bamboozle me, just challenging my assumptions.
The question I was left with is does it matter to the economy if we in the UK increased our spending to say 12% of GDP (through increased taxation) since that extra 2% would go back into the economy.
I am sure the neolibs on here will tell me why they think that's a bad idea but seems a great thing to me. What's more important improving health or everyone having a bit more to spend on stuff they don't really need or driving up house prices?
So just like in North Carolina upon losing the governor race the GOP controlled assembly is simply going to remove all the governors powers.
Truly an astounding country.
h ttps://twitter.com/patrickdmarley/status/1060301509584404480?s=19
America is very rapidly losing any right to call itself a democracy. And Trump is a symbol of, rather than a causal factor in, this.
It honestly feels like many Republicans are still bitter about how Nixon and Nixon administration officials were treated and absolutely furious that Clinton made Bush Snr a one term president. It seems like American has been suffering a 40 year revenge fantasy.
I doubt that's it really. IMO much of the travails are down to money: when you spend multiple billions on an electoral cycle - and that's just on the elections - the system is screwed. The cost of losing is magnified, and the winners have oi pay back what they were given.
One of the best parts of our system - imperfect as it is - is the spending caps.
On your post, I'd actually defend Nixon a little. He was a poor president, with a deeply flawed president, but IMO not as bad as many people make out. A lot of ills get blamed on him that are only marginal, and more to do with his predecessors and successors.
Memo Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980
Just throw in Workhouses and you'd have a perfect economic and social policy platform.
I think consumers in America are ripped off a lot of the time. When I was there recently almost everything I did or bought was more expensive than it would have been in the UK: hotels, restaurants, train tickets, drinks, clothes, sports tickets. Only petrol was cheaper.
So just like in North Carolina upon losing the governor race the GOP controlled assembly is simply going to remove all the governors powers.
Truly an astounding country.
h ttps://twitter.com/patrickdmarley/status/1060301509584404480?s=19
America is very rapidly losing any right to call itself a democracy. And Trump is a symbol of, rather than a causal factor in, this.
It honestly feels like many Republicans are still bitter about how Nixon and Nixon administration officials were treated and absolutely furious that Clinton made Bush Snr a one term president. It seems like American has been suffering a 40 year revenge fantasy.
I doubt that's it really. IMO much of the travails are down to money: when you spend multiple billions on an electoral cycle - and that's just on the elections - the system is screwed. The cost of losing is magnified, and the winners have oi pay back what they were given.
One of the best parts of our system - imperfect as it is - is the spending caps.
On your post, I'd actually defend Nixon a little. He was a poor president, with a deeply flawed president, but IMO not as bad as many people make out. A lot of ills get blamed on him that are only marginal, and more to do with his predecessors and successors.
Arguably Clinton and Nixon were very similar Presidents in most crucial respects. Both elected and re-elected. Both more successful abroad than at home, both with quite an aggressive foreign policy that included bombing the living daylights out of lots of random places a long way off, both accused of serious crimes, both ultimately let off. Both were self indulgent - Nixon a drunk, Clinton a sex maniac. Both ultimately left office having achieved little of what they promised.
Yet Clinton continues to be highly rated while Nixon is not.
Is there ever a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally to states rather than on a flat two-per-state basis?
Currently, there is one US Senator for every 18.6m Californian voters and one per 0.3m Wyoming voters. Hardly fair.
Arguably start with statehood for DC and Puerto Rico who have zero Senators!
Does Puerto Rico send representatives to the House now, or is it still not able to?
PR and the other inhabited territories each send a non-voting delegate to the House. The delegates do get assigned to and vote in committees though, which arguably is more powerful than having a vote in the House and no committee membership.
The equal representation of the states in the Senate clause is the only part of the Constitution that cannot be amended.
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
The other aspect is who pays. While other healthcare costs are usually covered by either insurance or government Medicare, often prescriptiond are paid for directly by the patient as a co-payment.
I was talking to the director of a US medical school a while back about the massive cost of US healthcare. He pointed out to me that the 17% of GDP spent in the US on healthcare is not lost to the economy, it just circulates back round into the economy.
Seemed plausible but I'm no economist.
All expenditure "circulates back round into the economy" (except on imports). It still means that 17% of US national income is spent on healthcare with no better outcomes than countries that only spend 9% of their national income on healthcare. Your US medical school director is trying to bamboozle you.
No he wasn't trying to bamboozle me, just challenging my assumptions.
The question I was left with is does it matter to the economy if we in the UK increased our spending to say 12% of GDP (through increased taxation) since that extra 2% would go back into the economy.
I am sure the neolibs on here will tell me why they think that's a bad idea but seems a great thing to me. What's more important improving health or everyone having a bit more to spend on stuff they don't really need or driving up house prices?
The proportion of the US economy allocated to healthcare is more than double the proportion of the U.K. economy, yet they die earlier. Spending more money does nothing if it doesn’t reach the patient.
A lot of New Labour’s NHS spending increases went on higher pay for staff. Great for them, but let’s not pretend it made us healthier.
The issue isn't the pharmaceutical companies it is the broken US medical system. Allowing health programs to use their buying power seems a reasonable first step.
Yep. Prescription drugs account for somewhere around 10% of US healthcare spending. Assuming a hugely over-ambitious 50% cut, it would barely make a dent in healthcare costs (though clearly would make a big difference in individual cases).
Healthcare in the US is a mess, and addressing that systematically would deal with the drug pricing problem at the same time. Won't happen, of course, and pharmas are a relatively easy target.
The unintended consequence would quite likely be the acceleration of the current slow migration of drug development to Asia.
That's not 'barely a dent' in healthcare costs that's quite significant. It would be a saving of 5% of healthcare costs which for an individual saving is absolutely mammoth. Furthermore its worth bearing in mind that US healthcare expenditure is approaching and will soon reach 20% of GDP. Therefore the saving would be equivalent to an incredible 1% of GDP.
The other aspect is who pays. While other healthcare costs are usually covered by either insurance or government Medicare, often prescriptiond are paid for directly by the patient as a co-payment.
Although the co-pay if you have insurance or are on Medicare/Medicaid is relatively small, about the same as NHS prescription charges. However, unlike the NHS pretty much everyone has to pay the co-pay irrespective of income. Usually the co-pays are tiered with generics being the cheapest.
I predicted Tester would win by around 16,000 votes a few threads back, and so it will come to pass (15317 ahead + around 1000 net from Gallatin to come). The New York Times precinct/remaining vote model worked very well indeed there.
The biggest problem with the Senate is not the equal representation but that it's co-equal with the House: both have an absolute veto on passing bills. Most bicameral constitutions enacted after the US one, even those modelled on it, usually have put in procedures for resolving cases where the two houses can't agree on a bill. The typical solution is for the two houses to consider the disputed bill in joint session. I think that could work in the American system as it would preserve the smaller states having more of a say, as their representation in a joint house would be the same as the Electoral College, but should reduce the likelihood of legislative gridlock.
Is there ever a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally to states rather than on a flat two-per-state basis?
Currently, there is one US Senator for every 18.6m Californian voters and one per 0.3m Wyoming voters. Hardly fair.
Arguably start with statehood for DC and Puerto Rico who have zero Senators!
Does Puerto Rico send representatives to the House now, or is it still not able to?
PR and the other inhabited territories each send a non-voting delegate to the House. The delegates do get assigned to and vote in committees though, which arguably is more powerful than having a vote in the House and no committee membership.
The equal representation of the states in the Senate clause is the only part of the Constitution that cannot be amended.
So just like in North Carolina upon losing the governor race the GOP controlled assembly is simply going to remove all the governors powers.
Truly an astounding country.
h ttps://twitter.com/patrickdmarley/status/1060301509584404480?s=19
America is very rapidly losing any right to call itself a democracy. And Trump is a symbol of, rather than a causal factor in, this.
It honestly feels like many Republicans are still bitter about how Nixon and Nixon administration officials were treated and absolutely furious that Clinton made Bush Snr a one term president. It seems like American has been suffering a 40 year revenge fantasy.
I doubt that's it really. IMO much of the travails are down to money: when you spend multiple billions on an electoral cycle - and that's just on the elections - the system is screwed. The cost of losing is magnified, and the winners have oi pay back what they were given.
One of the best parts of our system - imperfect as it is - is the spending caps.
On your post, I'd actually defend Nixon a little. He was a poor president, with a deeply flawed president, but IMO not as bad as many people make out. A lot of ills get blamed on him that are only marginal, and more to do with his predecessors and successors.
Arguably Clinton and Nixon were very similar Presidents in most crucial respects. Both elected and re-elected. Both more successful abroad than at home, both with quite an aggressive foreign policy that included bombing the living daylights out of lots of random places a long way off, both accused of serious crimes, both ultimately let off. Both were self indulgent - Nixon a drunk, Clinton a sex maniac. Both ultimately left office having achieved little of what they promised.
Yet Clinton continues to be highly rated while Nixon is not.
Clinton left a growing economy and lower inflation than Nixon despite Nixon's success with China he was also tainted by Vietnam
According to latest data from CBS the Republican lead in the Senatorial race in Florida is now less than 17,400 . Yesterday they were 34,000 ahead.
What I don’t get is how the felon vote amendment got 60% backing when Republicans won the governorship and the Senate race.
America isn't always as ideologically split as it appears. Sometimes things win on their merits. The amendment wasn't that controversial: it simply puts Florida in line with most states, including most of the red ones.
According to latest data from CBS the Republican lead in the Senatorial race in Florida is now less than 17,400 . Yesterday they were 34,000 ahead.
What I don’t get is how the felon vote amendment got 60% backing when Republicans won the governorship and the Senate race.
I am a bit surprised that some of the networks have not reverted to 'Too close to call' on this one given that the margin is barely 0.2% now - comparable to circa 100 votes in a UK constituency. I doubt that the automatic recount has yet taken place.
So just like in North Carolina upon losing the governor race the GOP controlled assembly is simply going to remove all the governors powers.
Truly an astounding country.
h ttps://twitter.com/patrickdmarley/status/1060301509584404480?s=19
America is very rapidly losing any right to call itself a democracy. And Trump is a symbol of, rather than a causal factor in, this.
It honestly feels like many Republicans are still bitter about how Nixon and Nixon administration officials were treated and absolutely furious that Clinton made Bush Snr a one term president. It seems like American has been suffering a 40 year revenge fantasy.
I doubt that's it really. IMO much of the travails are down to money: when you spend multiple billions on an electoral cycle - and that's just on the elections - the system is screwed. The cost of losing is magnified, and the winners have oi pay back what they were given.
One of the best parts of our system - imperfect as it is - is the spending caps.
On your post, I'd actually defend Nixon a little. He was a poor president, with a deeply flawed president, but IMO not as bad as many people make out. A lot of ills get blamed on him that are only marginal, and more to do with his predecessors and successors.
Arguably Clinton and Nixon were very similar Presidents in most crucial respects. Both elected and re-elected. Both more successful abroad than at home, both with quite an aggressive foreign policy that included bombing the living daylights out of lots of random places a long way off, both accused of serious crimes, both ultimately let off. Both were self indulgent - Nixon a drunk, Clinton a sex maniac. Both ultimately left office having achieved little of what they promised.
Yet Clinton continues to be highly rated while Nixon is not.
Clinton left a growing economy and lower inflation than Nixon despite Nixon's success with China he was also tainted by Vietnam
And Clinton could have tackled Al Qaeda and OBL before 9/11. History would certainly have been different if he had gone heavier against OBL ...
According to latest data from CBS the Republican lead in the Senatorial race in Florida is now less than 17,400 . Yesterday they were 34,000 ahead.
What I don’t get is how the felon vote amendment got 60% backing when Republicans won the governorship and the Senate race.
I am a bit surprised that some of the networks have not reverted to 'Too close to call' on this one given that the margin is barely 0.2% now - comparable to circa 100 votes in a UK constituency. I doubt that the automatic recount has yet taken place.
It is not equivalent to 100 votes. That's not how statistical variation works.
According to latest data from CBS the Republican lead in the Senatorial race in Florida is now less than 17,400 . Yesterday they were 34,000 ahead.
What I don’t get is how the felon vote amendment got 60% backing when Republicans won the governorship and the Senate race.
America isn't always as ideologically split as it appears. Sometimes things win on their merits. The amendment wasn't that controversial: it simply puts Florida in line with most states, including most of the red ones.
Medicaid expansion won in three deep red states as well as ballot initiatives.
Comments
Much of what we read is recycled, and the US produces a lot of news, in English.
The ranking of the top newspaper web rankings in Africa is perhaps pertinent:
https://www.4imn.com/topAfrica/
And a list of the top 10 African websites:
https://answersafrica.com/most-popular-african-websites.html
If you're interested in Asian news, https://asia.nikkei.com is quite good.
"because that's where the journalists are"... true.
If it breaks either of those it is going a long way in that direction
For comic effect, though.....
The London-focused high-end builders like Berkeley are more of a risk (although arguably one worth taking), but get out into the wilds beyond the M25, and the house market is fairly healthy.
Sure, things might slow down a bit, but the valuations are more than pricing that in already. And if there's a Brexit deal, things won't slow down, they'll accelerate.
The world has never been better than it is now, there’s never been a better time to be alive.
Also it is incredibly open with its politics and current affairs, in the way that China, say, isn't.
Consumer debt is high, loads of houses beig built or permissions granted, interest rates look like increasing soon, bigger deposits wanted. It all looks a bit 2007 to me. The retail closures pre Christmas and reductions in car sales speak to me of trouble ahead too.
I still have some housebuilders in my ISA, but fewer than a year ago.
This year is the 100 year centenary and to many of us it is a time to remember people like my grandfather who, despite being seriously wounded, led his men to safety but ultimately died of his injuries and my Uncle Jim who lost his arm when a shell took out the lintel of the farmhouse he was fighting from. It is a time to remember and put politics on one side
I am not without critism of TM but she is the one who inherited the poisoned chalice and is doing her best to get a deal. The whole political class are a shambles including the labour party, together with the media and many who seem clueless on all sides of the argument
£306,000 for 88 sq metres of house and a postage stamp garden is almost beyond belief round here !
Alternatively you can part with £200k for a 53 sq metre semi 3 up, 2 down. My last house was around this size and I bought and sold for around half that.
The prices are crazy ! I can only conclude the sales staff must be practised in hypnosis.
Is help to buy going to come to an end any time soon - that's the only reason I can see the prices of these hovels being as they are.
Currently, there is one US Senator for every 18.6m Californian voters and one per 0.3m Wyoming voters. Hardly fair.
So far little of this has come to pass but it was an interesting read.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4126334/
I assume a change would require a constitutional amendment which, oh wait, requires a 2/3rd majority in the House and the Senate and has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. So, tricky...
If we want to return to that sort of pricing, we have to ration lending and build more. Banks would hate the idea of going back to credit rationing. Bigger loans create money out of thin air which generates higher profits for the board and shareholders.
Anyway, I think my original question is answered... there's never likely to a push in the US for Senators to be allocated porportionally.
The political effort to get anything done is absolutely mammoth and fixing a problem that is equivalent to 1% of GDP is mammoth not minuscule. Whether it does anything for the rest of the problem is neither here nor there.
Seemed plausible but I'm no economist.
Truly an astounding country.
https://twitter.com/patrickdmarley/status/1060301509584404480?s=19
The SNP were the midwife of Thatcherism and 18 years of Tory rule.
The question I was left with is does it matter to the economy if we in the UK increased our spending to say 12% of GDP (through increased taxation) since that extra 2% would go back into the economy.
I am sure the neolibs on here will tell me why they think that's a bad idea but seems a great thing to me. What's more important improving health or everyone having a bit more to spend on stuff they don't really need or driving up house prices?
One of the best parts of our system - imperfect as it is - is the spending caps.
On your post, I'd actually defend Nixon a little. He was a poor president, with a deeply flawed president, but IMO not as bad as many people make out. A lot of ills get blamed on him that are only marginal, and more to do with his predecessors and successors.
In the same way Thatcherism was...
Yet Clinton continues to be highly rated while Nixon is not.
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1060600477560266757?s=19
The equal representation of the states in the Senate clause is the only part of the Constitution that cannot be amended.
A lot of New Labour’s NHS spending increases went on higher pay for staff. Great for them, but let’s not pretend it made us healthier.
The New York Times precinct/remaining vote model worked very well indeed there.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/16/bill-clinton-and-the-missed-opportunities-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/?utm_term=.58065232162c
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/08/tory-brexiters-reject-deal-irish-backstop-exit-clause-steve-baker
Florida. With a ballot design issue. You'd think that impossible but apparently not.
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=102067
As it happens it seems the effect is evenly split between candidates but holy crap, how could they let this happen again?