This is what happens when you crash the economy and increase mortgage costs – politicalbetting.com

Thread Warning!

This rag of a ‘news outlet’ has published such an egregious article slurring the wonderful
@KemiBadenoch
, that this needed a thread.

Kemi is not anti-trans. She is pro-children. Pro-women. Pro-equalities. Anti-ideology.
(1/12)

https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1585003157431517184

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

MoonRabbit said:

stodge said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. Very much on topic.

I am still researching what actually happened and piecing it together for lessons learned. And I’m coming to the opposite take to what the generally accepted wisdom is here.

The hugely expensive Energy Freeze bucking the market for two years, that is now history, was actually the cuckoo in Liz Truss IEA designed nest of policies - Trussnomics is actually closer and more on the ball with the change markets have moved to now two decades of economic orthodoxy is coming to an end, and where markets are now certain to move UK government, than Sunak, Hunt and Starmer all are.

I think it is almost certain to happen that your header TSE will date, history books will tell it completely the other way around. if people feel Truss crashed the economy (she certainly did not crash the whole thing) this view will change when those who told her she was wrong, properly crash the economy themselves.

To what degree Truss is vindicated as ahead of the game depends to what degree Sunak and Starmer (I still think change of government nailed on as voters have already made their minds up) adopt Trussnomics. If they don’t at all then a proper crash of the economy, Greek Style, is definitely going to happen in the UK at some point, the markets have decided on that.

But more likely we will get two short lived austerity governments now. Especially painful for Labour out of office for so long, face five years basically implementing austerity 2.0 and then thrown out for being hated for that.

Not for the first time, I don't agree at all.

So called "Trussnomics" (your term, not mine) or if you prefer good old fashioned supply side economics failed partially because of the way it was done but it also failed because it's not what people want and it's not how people think any more.

It's not 1980 - waving tax cuts like a magic wand might have worked then but the world now is predicated on a notion (some may call it strange or "woke") of fairness. The ideology of trickle-down (if you make the rich much richer you'll make the poor a little richer) no longer resonates on any level. Perhaps it's a result of the 1980s experience or the pandemic or a myriad of other factors but it's a product which can no longer be sold.

If anything and there's extensive polling supporting this, the mood is, yes, cut income tax for the poorest but tax the actual wealth of the richest. Some on here may find that repellent or impractical or both but that's where the majority is - if you like, the Robin Hood Tree (as the Magic Money Tree has been cut down ad its stump pulled out and burnt).

In short, you make everyone richer by making the rich poorer - that's quite appealing as a notion for all its issues.

The question is how will this Government and its Labour successor seek to re-balance the public finances and the inevitability is a mix of higher taxes and spending cuts. In 2010, for every £5 cut from spending, £1 was raised from higher taxes - it will be interesting to see if Sunak, once the protege of Osborne, seeks to follow a similar direction but the notion of a bloated public sector just doesn't fit the facts.

As I said in a post below, the politics and the economics are separate judgements. You are trying to to say I am wrong because the politics was bad and proved to be bad and out of place today?

But I didn’t even go there. I didn’t go into the politics side of it, just judgement on the economics. In fact you have proved my point perfectly - the opinion polls and this thread header and now your post show people have fused the two as one and same thing cannot now give you a separate judgement on each.

Here’s Truss mistake - a growth budget cutting some taxes could be perfectly funded by cutting public spending. That’s the point I am making - Trussnomics, right wing Keynesianism, getting and sustaining growth funded through cutting size of state isn’t something I am making up. It’s the economic era we are now in where opinion of Sunak or Starmer, or party members or voters just doesn’t matter a jot.

As neither yourself, or Ben came back for more, I take it you understand my point now.

Before I stop to say my prayers, I’ll leave you with this in case the Penny still hasn’t dropped that quickly captures my point in a nutshell.

We enter a new era of payback for the last era of cheap credit leading to debt, where every bout of money-printing created an inflationary bubble ready to explode, the housing market and stock exchange are inflated by that printed money - a twenty year orthodoxy that has failed Britain and its people: here we are after it with an insane housing market, negative real interest rates, double digit inflation, taxes at a 70 year high, exponential spending on the worst health service in Europe, £2.4 trillion of debt and lower wages than we had in 2008. This government and BoE joint orthodoxy, this business as usual, is actually killing us as an economy, as a country - like a drunk who can’t kick their existential addiction.

So I am asking you to picture the BoE, Sunak and Starmer as alcoholics, where the markets are now taking the booze off them for their own good.

How are markets doing that? Markets fairly demand a greater return on their investment in a country maxed out on credit, taxed to the hilt and not just failing to deliver growth, but not even producing growth budgets. Gilt yields rising above 4 per cent is not high by the standard of the 20th century, nor was living with between 2-4% interest rates and periods of inflation.

If BoE, Sunak and Starmer put up a fight, can they win?
Nope. Hence we are into era of a new orthodoxy governments cannot buck.

Roger said:

nico679 said:

Peter Kyle Labour attack line on Sunak is his comments re diverting money from poor urban areas to richer areas . This got a little media attention in the summer but didn’t have legs when Truss became PM .

Yvette Cooper earlier going after Bravermans appointment with security concerns and her breaking the ministerial code .

The Braverman appointment has legs. It follows the narrative of Tory sleaze. The Tories are oblivious to the rules. This should suit Starmer (and Cooper) down to the ground. A

An inexplicable appointment by Sunak unless he really does see himself as Master of the Universe and where rules are for the little people.

Yes, I wasn’t clear why it was being brushed off my some cock-eyed PBers earlier. It doesn’t really matter as to the granular detail of her sacking, the fact that she was sacked for a security breach then was reappointed six days later as Home Secretary is ludicrous in and of itself. Just easy pickings for Labour:

“you got the sack, why are you back?”

WillG said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The SE vs the rest. I don't think anybody is saying no work of any value goes on in Birmingham, Manchester etc.

It was more the best jobs, the best talent, etc, across the vast majority of sectors gets overwhelmingly tractor-beamed there. The same happens in Italy (albeit the North) and they have very similar problems.

France / Germany for a number of reasons, different sectors are located in different areas of the country.

Not true for France. Paris there is as dominant as London here. Germany and Italy have much more luck due to the fact they had regional capitals due to late unification.

The obvious solution to this is to move the British government to a new city every 20 years to build up regional cities.

That's a good idea. I would suggest moving the capital to Barcelona, then Copenhagen. I'm not likely to live past 90, so pick your own capitals after that.

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

FF43 said:

turbotubbs said:

Gardenwalker said:

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

EPG said:

Scott_xP said:

Brutal. And absolutely worth your time.
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/10/uk-economy-disaster-degrowth-brexit/671847/

Pity it's clearly nonsensical, migrants aren't camping in Calais because they want to flee a rich country to get to a poor country, nor do young Spaniards and Italians flock to London because the streets of Lisbon are paved with gold.

You didn’t read it, did you?

Go on, tell us why Britain is much poorer than France, then.

Well, it’s got you in it for a start.
Apart from that, just read the piece.

Not a lot of cold, hard facts there. The rise of hand car washes is surely more to do with unchecked immigration from Eastern Europe than a failure to automate car washes.

That the UK has lower productivity than peers in Europe and is falling behind further is well documented. UK median incomes after housing were amongst the highest in Europe before the GFC, now in the lower half and falling further relatively. This is directly attributable to two Conservative government policies: Cameron/Osborne austerity and Brexit. I would say the article is spot on.



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/13/average-uk-household-8800-a-year-worse-off-than-those-in-france-or-germany

DIsclosure: I thought austerity was necessary back in 2010. I now realise I was mistaken

This is effectively saying that the median UK household is worse off relative to other European countries due to higher house prices, which is surely not right, on the contrary, most households gain from higher house prices because they get housing equity that they can liquidate for spending in retirement, unlike the typical German renter who needs to invest in ultra-safe pensions.

But this is the problem ffs! In very simple terms, everyone on high incomes AHC in the UK tends to be a no-mortgage Tory with no dependents. Huge wealth and disposable income. And nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, someone like me has to chuck a huge amount of our salary into a mortgage or rent. We don't then have the money left over to go for a Masters degree or Further education, lowering our productivity. Or we don't have the spare cash to move to another part of the country to match our skills with a better job.

Some of us, like me, get a big chunk of money off our parents for the flat and/or the Masters. This entrenches generational inequality, further disincentivising people who are high-performers from even bothering to make something of themselves.

Productivity growth dies. No one has money to have kids, so the fertility rate drops. There is reduced working-age population which gets squeezed harder and harder to serve an older generation which, due to technological advances and an increase in chronic conditions, requires a huge number of carers (further reducing the working population).

The UK enters a death spiral and everyone sensible moves to somewhere that isn't going to get fucked by climate change.

Many if not most of the non-mortgage people are actually on modest incomes, being pensioners. Another fly in the ointment of median household income comparisons, albeit not one where the cross-country comparison is significant - it's more problematic when comparing urban cores to suburban/rural.

After you pay your mortgage, you will have a very high-value asset which you can liquidate in retirement. This isn't a lack of income as such. Rather, it's a higher rate of quasi-forces saving than you would like; you'd prefer more spending when young and less spending when old, which is fair enough. As you note, a lot of older people spend that money on their children, and if you somehow wiped out their wealth, you could increase wealth equality, at the cost of strongly discouraging people from working any more than required to cover hand-to-mouth expenses in old age.

I don't think the fertility comparison between the UK and a renter country like Germany is altogether supportive of your point, and I don't think climate change is going to hit the UK worse than Portugal or the Netherlands.

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

If you're quick, you can gulp it down in the time it takes them to reach for the crisps and you can pretend they never served it to you in the first place. Usually too tired to notice.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

Paying for wifi and gin....this sounds like you might not be in business class.....the horror.

The glory days of Knappers Gazette
correspondents being gifted biz class flights are, I fear, far behind us

I am so old I can remember when we sometimes got FIRST class for free. Now we travel with the proles

I did look into upgrading myself for the transatlantic bits. The cost was about £8000

I can suffer a few hours of mild discomfort if it means I save £8k. Insane

Eabhal said:

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

If you're quick, you can gulp it down in the time it takes them to reach for the crisps and you can pretend they never served it to you in the first place. Usually too tired to notice.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

Gardenwalker said:

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

Cookie said:

Eabhal said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

The UK is not “the poorest country in Western Europe”. It’s obviously richer than Italy, Portugal and Spain for a start. Maybe just behind France. It is notably poorer than Denmark, Austria, and other smaller rich countries

What the UK is, is more unequal

In the UK the rich are richer, esp in London. And the poor are poorer

The other problem we have in the UK compared to say Germany and France is just how dominant London / SE, it literally sucks all the talent, which then just drive more demand for housing etc etc etc. Other European countries, people go to Frankfurt for some jobs, Munich for other types of careers etc.

Here, pretty much everybody comes straight out of uni, I want a grad job in London....its seen as second best if you get sent to the Manchester office instead.

We have had government after government try to change that, putting public sector jobs in other parts of the country etc to try and drive the blue chip private sector to go there, all with very limited success.

I'm not 100% sure about that. Might be the case in England? Only one of my close uni friends has ended up in London, gets paid twice what I do and lives in a box room with a mouldy roof (this might be more to do with what he spends his money on, though...)

Edinburgh is a very popular choice in grad schemes, and a large chunk of my cohort (including me!) worked hard to get a placement here.

I had a lot of fun trying to model a scenario where you are not allowed to discriminate by geography - a grad job in Bradford must pay the same as in London. Was unable to provide any coherent results.

Edinburgh is somewhere I can see the attractiom of the quality of life being enough to counterbalance the unaffordabilility of life. London, for me, is absolutely not. Yes it's an amazing city, but not enough to exchange a large house in a nice suburb of a secondary city for a bog standard house in a down at heel suburn of London. But others do, because they value things differently.
I suspect for a grad, the attraction of London over Bradford is principally, when it comes dowm to it, all those other grads.

No, it’s because if you want a career the vast bulk of professional jobs are in London.

I'd be stunned if, say, 80% of professionals in the UK are in the South East. Rather, I imagine the most productive companies where you get the best training are in the South East. You go there for a few years to train with the best of the best, and apply your skills in a normal region where


houses are cheaper. Or maybe you stay if you are a type A personality who actually wants to work 55+ hours a week in exchange for lucrative reward.

Who said 80%?
By the way, l never worked beyond 55+ hours after my 20s.

Many PBers’ perception of normal London life is completely off the wall

I am obviously doing it all wrong, I do more than 55+ hours a week and don't work in London....

I live in London and do about 55 hours work a year

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

Paying for wifi and gin....this sounds like you might not be in business class.....the horror.

The glory days of Knappers Gazette
correspondents being gifted biz class flights are, I fear, far behind us

I am so old I can remember when we sometimes got FIRST class for free. Now we travel with the proles

I did look into upgrading myself for the transatlantic bits. The cost was about £8000

I can suffer a few hours of mild discomfort if it means I save £8k. Insane

I remember seeing something the other day saying that business class travel demand has been through the roof. People making good money during COVID + not spending it.

dixiedean said:

Anabobazina said:

Roger said:

nico679 said:

Peter Kyle Labour attack line on Sunak is his comments re diverting money from poor urban areas to richer areas . This got a little media attention in the summer but didn’t have legs when Truss became PM .

Yvette Cooper earlier going after Bravermans appointment with security concerns and her breaking the ministerial code .

The Braverman appointment has legs. It follows the narrative of Tory sleaze. The Tories are oblivious to the rules. This should suit Starmer (and Cooper) down to the ground. A

An inexplicable appointment by Sunak unless he really does see himself as Master of the Universe and where rules are for the little people.

Yes, I wasn’t clear why it was being brushed off my some cock-eyed PBers earlier. It doesn’t really matter as to the granular detail of her sacking, the fact that she was sacked for a security breach then was reappointed six days later as Home Secretary is ludicrous in and of itself. Just easy pickings for Labour:

“you got the sack, why are you back?”

Christian King.
Hindu PM.
Jewish DPM.
Muslim Mayor of London.
Buddhist loony.

That's equality, isn't it? Only the Tory Party can deliver that level of achingly righteous diversity.
We thoroughly embrace incompetents of all genders and races.

Indeed. Cruella’s reincarnation could be framed as woke affirmative action I guess

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

Paying for wifi and gin....this sounds like you might not be in business class.....the horror.

The glory days of Knappers Gazette
correspondents being gifted biz class flights are, I fear, far behind us

I am so old I can remember when we sometimes got FIRST class for free. Now we travel with the proles

I did look into upgrading myself for the transatlantic bits. The cost was about £8000

I can suffer a few hours of mild discomfort if it means I save £8k. Insane

I remember seeing something the other day saying that business class travel demand has been through the roof. People making good money during COVID + not spending it.

So that’s the explanation?! I did wonder. Prices for biz are mad. Tripled or more from pre covid

You have to be seriously seriously rich to shrug and pay £9000 for a return transatlantic flight out of your own pocket

I wondered if it was fuel costs. But your explanation makes much more sense. Demand

dixiedean said:

I suggest we try trickle up.
Ditch Council Tax (£1500 for a Band A here. Huge disincentive to work).
Pay real Living wage.
Abolish NI below the IT threshold.
See if that works for a change.
Probably won't. But give it 40 years just to be sure.
Like trickle down

For people on the IT threshold, benefits of paying NI can be the only backup they have.

HYUFD said:

dixiedean said:

Anabobazina said:

Roger said:

nico679 said:

Peter Kyle Labour attack line on Sunak is his comments re diverting money from poor urban areas to richer areas . This got a little media attention in the summer but didn’t have legs when Truss became PM .

Yvette Cooper earlier going after Bravermans appointment with security concerns and her breaking the ministerial code .

The Braverman appointment has legs. It follows the narrative of Tory sleaze. The Tories are oblivious to the rules. This should suit Starmer (and Cooper) down to the ground. A

An inexplicable appointment by Sunak unless he really does see himself as Master of the Universe and where rules are for the little people.

Yes, I wasn’t clear why it was being brushed off my some cock-eyed PBers earlier. It doesn’t really matter as to the granular detail of her sacking, the fact that she was sacked for a security breach then was reappointed six days later as Home Secretary is ludicrous in and of itself. Just easy pickings for Labour:

“you got the sack, why are you back?”

Christian King.
Hindu PM.
Jewish DPM.
Muslim Mayor of London.
Buddhist loony.

That's equality, isn't it? Only the Tory Party can deliver that level of achingly righteous diversity.
We thoroughly embrace incompetents of all genders and races.

Raab is Church of England if Jewish heritage.

Khan is of course Labour not Tory

This diversity business is more tricky than I thought.
How about competence and integrity?
No. Thought not

Leon said:

American Airlines has really good cheap in-flight wifi

American’s cheap wifi is a miserable innovation for business travellers. It means you are now expected to work, when previously you could read a novel and get pissed for eight hours, blissfully incommunicado

Monkeys said:

dixiedean said:

I suggest we try trickle up.
Ditch Council Tax (£1500 for a Band A here. Huge disincentive to work).
Pay real Living wage.
Abolish NI below the IT threshold.
See if that works for a change.
Probably won't. But give it 40 years just to be sure.
Like trickle down

For people on the IT threshold, benefits of paying NI can be the only backup they have.

Shouldn't have to be so.

MoonRabbit said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MoonRabbit said:

Ishmael_Z said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. Very much on topic.

I am still researching what actually happened and piecing it together for lessons learned. And I’m coming to the opposite take to what the generally accepted wisdom is here.

The hugely expensive Energy Freeze bucking the market for two years, that is now history, was actually the cuckoo in Liz Truss IEA designed nest of policies - Trussnomics is actually closer and more on the ball with the change markets have moved to now two decades of economic orthodoxy is coming to an end, and where markets are now certain to move UK government, than Sunak, Hunt and Starmer all are.

I think it is almost certain to happen that your header TSE will date, history books will tell it completely the other way around. if people feel Truss crashed the economy (she certainly did not crash the whole thing) this view will change when those who told her she was wrong, properly crash the economy themselves.

To what degree Truss is vindicated as ahead of the game depends to what degree Sunak and Starmer (I still think change of government nailed on as voters have already made their minds up) adopt Trussnomics. If they don’t at all then a proper crash of the economy, Greek Style, is definitely going to happen in the UK at some point, the markets have decided on that.

But more likely we will get two short lived austerity governments now. Especially painful for Labour out of office for so long, face five years basically implementing austerity 2.0 and then thrown out for being hated for that.

We are all going to come round to the view that borrowing to fund tax cuts is sensible?

Now you are spinning it, as you are good at, because the too much that was unfunded was Truss mistake, i agree. But that doesn’t change the fundamental point, because the economic truth is it didn’t have to be unfunded did it? If properly funded those tax cuts would still have been politically explosive, but that doesn’t change or should not reflect on the economics in anyway should it, the political assessment and economic assessment should rightly be separate.

So how about this, we are in a new place now, just like when Sunny Jim gave his “I can tell you in all candour” the levers we usually pull are now not working speech - call Truss growth policy right wing Keynesianism, call it what you like, the alternative is you are unbothered by the need for growth aren’t you? You feel we can borrow or raise taxes instead? Well, I can tell you in all candour… 😁

Truss tax cuts could have been funded by cuts,

prediction one: Just like Sunak’s and Starmer’s tax cuts will be funded by cuts.

Prediction two: 7 years of shrinking the state to pay for a push for growth lie ahead for UK now - Sunak and Starmer don’t have a say in that, nor the voters of this country, the markets have decided for us that we are now in a new orthodoxy, wherein we have to repay the bill for years of cheap credit.

Any questions?

How do I get out of this chicken-shit outfit?

Odd choice of halloween costume.

I guess you havn’t seen it? 😆

- Hey, Moonrabbit! Have you ever been mistaken for a man?

- No. Have you?

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Film from Leon's last night at his dude's Arizona Dude Ranch -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=broKQIOYSNc
Muppets - Roy Rodgers And Dale Evans - Sing a medley

My weekend at the ranch was superb. Everyone started on the margaritas at about 10am - and didn’t stop. One morning we crossed the border to do the same in Mexico. In Nogales. More margaritas were downed in strange cartel-y cantinas




When Americans decide to enjoy themselves they really go for it. I guess it comes from having fewer holidays. Or more money

mwadams said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

Paying for wifi and gin....this sounds like you might not be in business class.....the horror.

The glory days of Knappers Gazette
correspondents being gifted biz class flights are, I fear, far behind us

I am so old I can remember when we sometimes got FIRST class for free. Now we travel with the proles

I did look into upgrading myself for the transatlantic bits. The cost was about £8000

I can suffer a few hours of mild discomfort if it means I save £8k. Insane

I remember seeing something the other day saying that business class travel demand has been through the roof. People making good money during COVID + not spending it.

So that’s the explanation?! I did wonder. Prices for biz are mad. Tripled or more from pre covid

You have to be seriously seriously rich to shrug and pay £9000 for a return transatlantic flight out of your own pocket

I wondered if it was fuel costs. But your explanation makes much more sense. Demand

We don't do much transatlantic travel, but when we did (pre-covid) we would fly everyone First. It was "quite expensive" but not astronomically so; the team really appreciated the perk (expedited check-in, Concorde lounge etc) and everyone was less knackered on arrival.

We are sending some folk over to run workshops at some in person conferences next month. Suffice to say we looked at first and business prices and they are truly horrific. Apparently some airlines (United?) have ditched transatlantic First entirely as uneconomic.

as Leon says, who on earth is paying £9000 for transatlantic travel? It was about £4300 return last time I made the journey, pre-covid.

Which was worth it to my former employer, as the alternative if they wanted to ensure I was well rested for my meeting, would be to book me a day in advance, pay the NYC hotel costs for the extra night, and lose the productivity of the extra day (I think I was billed out to client at something like £1250 a day). Then the same on the way back, unless they wanted me to snooze my way through the next day back in the office in London. So at £4300 return, it made economic sense for my employer to do it. It certainly doesn't at 8k or more.

The reappointment of Braverman is frankly as ludicrous - and indeed as offensive to decent thinking people - as making Reinhard Heydrich Head of Interpol which also did happen.

...

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

stodge said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. Very much on topic.

I am still researching what actually happened and piecing it together for lessons learned. And I’m coming to the opposite take to what the generally accepted wisdom is here.

The hugely expensive Energy Freeze bucking the market for two years, that is now history, was actually the cuckoo in Liz Truss IEA designed nest of policies - Trussnomics is actually closer and more on the ball with the change markets have moved to now two decades of economic orthodoxy is coming to an end, and where markets are now certain to move UK government, than Sunak, Hunt and Starmer all are.

I think it is almost certain to happen that your header TSE will date, history books will tell it completely the other way around. if people feel Truss crashed the economy (she certainly did not crash the whole thing) this view will change when those who told her she was wrong, properly crash the economy themselves.

To what degree Truss is vindicated as ahead of the game depends to what degree Sunak and Starmer (I still think change of government nailed on as voters have already made their minds up) adopt Trussnomics. If they don’t at all then a proper crash of the economy, Greek Style, is definitely going to happen in the UK at some point, the markets have decided on that.

But more likely we will get two short lived austerity governments now. Especially painful for Labour out of office for so long, face five years basically implementing austerity 2.0 and then thrown out for being hated for that.

Not for the first time, I don't agree at all.

So called "Trussnomics" (your term, not mine) or if you prefer good old fashioned supply side economics failed partially because of the way it was done but it also failed because it's not what people want and it's not how people think any more.

It's not 1980 - waving tax cuts like a magic wand might have worked then but the world now is predicated on a notion (some may call it strange or "woke") of fairness. The ideology of trickle-down (if you make the rich much richer you'll make the poor a little richer) no longer resonates on any level. Perhaps it's a result of the 1980s experience or the pandemic or a myriad of other factors but it's a product which can no longer be sold.

If anything and there's extensive polling supporting this, the mood is, yes, cut income tax for the poorest but tax the actual wealth of the richest. Some on here may find that repellent or impractical or both but that's where the majority is - if you like, the Robin Hood Tree (as the Magic Money Tree has been cut down ad its stump pulled out and burnt).

In short, you make everyone richer by making the rich poorer - that's quite appealing as a notion for all its issues.

The question is how will this Government and its Labour successor seek to re-balance the public finances and the inevitability is a mix of higher taxes and spending cuts. In 2010, for every £5 cut from spending, £1 was raised from higher taxes - it will be interesting to see if Sunak, once the protege of Osborne, seeks to follow a similar direction but the notion of a bloated public sector just doesn't fit the facts.

As I said in a post below, the politics and the economics are separate judgements. You are trying to to say I am wrong because the politics was bad and proved to be bad and out of place today?

But I didn’t even go there. I didn’t go into the politics side of it, just judgement on the economics. In fact you have proved my point perfectly - the opinion polls and this thread header and now your post show people have fused the two as one and same thing cannot now give you a separate judgement on each.

Here’s Truss mistake - a growth budget cutting some taxes could be perfectly funded by cutting public spending. That’s the point I am making - Trussnomics, right wing Keynesianism, getting and sustaining growth funded through cutting size of state isn’t something I am making up. It’s the economic era we are now in where opinion of Sunak or Starmer, or party members or voters just doesn’t matter a jot.

As neither yourself, or Ben came back for more, I take it you understand my point now.

Before I stop to say my prayers, I’ll leave you with this in case the Penny still hasn’t dropped that quickly captures my point in a nutshell.

We enter a new era of payback for the last era of cheap credit leading to debt, where every bout of money-printing created an inflationary bubble ready to explode, the housing market and stock exchange are inflated by that printed money - a twenty year orthodoxy that has failed Britain and its people: here we are after it with an insane housing market, negative real interest rates, double digit inflation, taxes at a 70 year high, exponential spending on the worst health service in Europe, £2.4 trillion of debt and lower wages than we had in 2008. This government and BoE joint orthodoxy, this business as usual, is actually killing us as an economy, as a country - like a drunk who can’t kick their existential addiction.

So I am asking you to picture the BoE, Sunak and Starmer as alcoholics, where the markets are now taking the booze off them for their own good.

How are markets doing that? Markets fairly demand a greater return on their investment in a country maxed out on credit, taxed to the hilt and not just failing to deliver growth, but not even producing growth budgets. Gilt yields rising above 4 per cent is not high by the standard of the 20th century, nor was living with between 2-4% interest rates and periods of inflation.

If BoE, Sunak and Starmer put up a fight, can they win?
Nope. Hence we are into era of a new orthodoxy governments cannot buck.

"We enter a new era of payback for the last era of cheap credit leading to debt, where every bout of money-printing created an inflationary bubble ready to explode, the housing market and stock exchange are inflated by that printed money."

I agree with that statement entirely from my A level economics text books of 40 years ago, the books that Barty Bobbins assures me are out of date and no longer apply. But of course they do which is why, in a very difficult to read and to understand post, this segment stands out as accurate.

I am not sure where Starmer fits into your narrative, most of all because he is playing his cards so close to his chest we have no idea what levels of fiscal probity he may or may not adopt were he ever to win a General Election.

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also, again I seemed to remember that long haul airlines make their money off business. Cattle class is just about covering costs. The amounts you can get for a business seat is where all the profit comes from.

That was my understanding too. There is major profit in Biz and First. Especially if they can now charge ~£10k for Biz. Madness

So why would United ditch their premium cabins?

I think they can sell more Business seats, so they've repurposed the old lower-density First space to an increased number of 9k seats.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Film from Leon's last night at his dude's Arizona Dude Ranch -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=broKQIOYSNc
Muppets - Roy Rodgers And Dale Evans - Sing a medley

My weekend at the ranch was superb. Everyone started on the margaritas at about 10am - and didn’t stop. One morning we crossed the border to do the same in Mexico. In Nogales. More margaritas were downed in strange cartel-y cantinas




When Americans decide to enjoy themselves they really go for it. I guess it comes from having fewer holidays. Or more money

Any horseback riding (drunk or sober)? And which ranch (if ok to give your friend's plugs a plug)?

Some horse riding (drunk)

It’s not actually a dude ranch. It’s a real ranch that has been in his aristo family for a few generations. It’s gorgeous. His grandfather was a US Ambassador in Europe and he went around the Med buying up old medieval/18th century church fittings - beams, icons, roofs, antiques, silverware, doors - then he shipped them over in the “diplomatic bag” at Uncle Sam’s expense. They now decorate the ranch so it’s a bit like staying in an Andalusian monastery with Chinese furniture miraculously transplanted to the Arizona desert

The set up is almost feudal. Venerable retainers et al

Obviously I can’t name it. They keep it squirrelled away and secret

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also, again I seemed to remember that long haul airlines make their money off business. Cattle class is just about covering costs. The amounts you can get for a business seat is where all the profit comes from.

That was my understanding too. There is major profit in Biz and First. Especially if they can now charge ~£10k for Biz. Madness

So why would United ditch their premium cabins?

It would literally be cheaper for my former employer to send me out a day early, coach, put me up in a $1000 a night hotel room, give me a day off on the lash (all expenses paid) then show up to my meeting, and do the same in reverse back in London, than pay the additional 4-5k it costs post-Covid to send me business class.

I understand this equation will be slightly different for higher paid / more billable execs, but seriously - there can't be *that* many people for whom it's cheaper to fly them out for 8k than to give them a day off either side and fly them coach.

Add into that the sheer number of flights that must now be a zoom call, and you'd expect overall demand for business class flights to be dropping off a cliff, not flying through the roof. I don't get it.

Could it in fact be the opposite is happening - demand for business class seats has fallen substantially, therefore airlines are charging absolutely absurd prices for the very small segment of people willing to pay *any* price for face to face meetings (i.e. the part of the demand curve that's highly inelastic?)

mwadams said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also, again I seemed to remember that long haul airlines make their money off business. Cattle class is just about covering costs. The amounts you can get for a business seat is where all the profit comes from.

That was my understanding too. There is major profit in Biz and First. Especially if they can now charge ~£10k for Biz. Madness

So why would United ditch their premium cabins?

I think they can sell more Business seats, so they've repurposed the old lower-density First space to an increased number of 9k seats.

Just checked I wasn't talking Bobbins. You can't book a First class ticket on a United operated flight. They are always listed as "unavailable". Business is $10k LHR to LAX.

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also, again I seemed to remember that long haul airlines make their money off business. Cattle class is just about covering costs. The amounts you can get for a business seat is where all the profit comes from.

That was my understanding too. There is major profit in Biz and First. Especially if they can now charge ~£10k for Biz. Madness

So why would United ditch their premium cabins?

It would literally be cheaper for my former employer to send me out a day early, coach, put me up in a $1000 a night hotel room, give me a day off on the lash (all expenses paid) then show up to my meeting, and do the same in reverse back in London, than pay the additional 4-5k it costs post-Covid to send me business class.

I understand this equation will be slightly different for higher paid / more billable execs, but seriously - there can't be *that* many people for whom it's cheaper to fly them out for 8k than to give them a day off either side and fly them coach.

Add into that the sheer number of flights that must now be a zoom call, and you'd expect overall demand for business class flights to be dropping off a cliff, not flying through the roof. I don't get it.

Could it in fact be the opposite is happening - demand for business class seats has fallen substantially, therefore airlines are charging absolutely absurd prices for the very small segment of people willing to pay *any* price for face to face meetings (i.e. the part of the demand curve that's highly inelastic?)

It is strange. But I have been flying around the world almost non stop for a year and have not noticed Biz cabins getting smaller

This surge in prices also seems to be a transatlantic phenomenon. The other day I looked at a Biz class fight LHR-Bangkok in January 2023 and it was more expensive than pre covid but not much. 10% or so. Inflation explains it. The cost certainly hasn’t tripled

Maybe it is Americans in particular with the mighty dollar and a LOT of covid savings? There are noticeably large numbers of yanks in London, Rome, Florence, Seville, Lisbon - I’ve seen them

EPG said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

EPG said:

UK median disposable income is £31k. The chart says £15.5k. A heroic amount of adjustment is happening to cut incomes by half, and you have to trust that the Resolution Foundation is being equally rigorous across all those countries rather than settling on the story.

If you don’t like these facts, EPG has others?

ONS: "Median household disposable income in the UK was £31,400 in financial year ending (FYE) 2021, which covered the first year of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic".

The numbers from the RF were PPP.

That's why I'm saying trust in the adjustment is crucial, because the adjustment seems to be doing the majority of work in generating the statistic. Housing costs is a bit controversial because most people's housing costs are also an investment in an asset; if you excluded Germans' savings, their incomes would also be lower.

As I explained above, this is the core problem. If working people are chucking most of their incomes at their housing, they don't have the spare cash to invest, to educate themselves, to have kids.

Working Germans are chucking their savings on investment products like private pensions. Working Singaporeans chuck their savings on compulsory savings accounts. It's not clear that this is a problem that is really worse in the UK than in other countries, simply because the saving product is labelled "house".

The problem is that Germans chucking their savings into private pensions and Singaporeans chucking their savings into compulsory savings accounts don't (as far as I know and I stand to be corrected) make either pensions or savings accounts more expensive for everyone else. Chucking savings into a finite resource like housing makes houses more expensive and prevents them being used for their primary purpose which is to provide people with somewhere to live.

People buying houses, who would otherwise be renting houses, don't make houses more expensive for everyone else. It's the demand for housing vis-a-vis the supply that makes houses more expensive, regardless of ownership. If they were like German renters, they would simply be driving up rents for the same basic reasons of supply. Now, there is a little caveat that people might prefer more expensive housing when they buy rather than rent, but given the tax benefits, it's hard to be sure that is really due to the fundamentals. (There is also a caveat that banks may lend too much to fund housing - but bubbles have also been heard of in the equities that other savers ultimately buy.)

There are 700,000 second homes in the UK. Your argument does not apply to them because no one is living in them.

FrancisUrquhart said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also, again I seemed to remember that long haul airlines make their money off business. Cattle class is just about covering costs. The amounts you can get for a business seat is where all the profit comes from.

That was my understanding too. There is major profit in Biz and First. Especially if they can now charge ~£10k for Biz. Madness

So why would United ditch their premium cabins?

It would literally be cheaper for my former employer to send me out a day early, coach, put me up in a $1000 a night hotel room, give me a day off on the lash (all expenses paid) then show up to my meeting, and do the same in reverse back in London, than pay the additional 4-5k it costs post-Covid to send me business class.

I understand this equation will be slightly different for higher paid / more billable execs, but seriously - there can't be *that* many people for whom it's cheaper to fly them out for 8k than to give them a day off either side and fly them coach.

Add into that the sheer number of flights that must now be a zoom call, and you'd expect overall demand for business class flights to be dropping off a cliff, not flying through the roof. I don't get it.

Could it in fact be the opposite is happening - demand for business class seats has fallen substantially, therefore airlines are charging absolutely absurd prices for the very small segment of people willing to pay *any* price for face to face meetings (i.e. the part of the demand curve that's highly inelastic?)

Its not business people booking the business class tickets....its the upper middle class that made a load of money / saved a packet during COVID that are spending on personal travel (plus I imagine people from countries that have increased in wealth e.g. that massively expanding Chinese middle class).

That would make sense, except for the fact that I'm genuinely shocked anyone with an upper middle class income would be spending 8k on business class travel. I think you are in the top 5% of earners if you earn +100k, so even on 100k, are you going to be burning 8k on two 5 hour flights?

Look at Leon - not exactly short of a bob or two - and going "well, I'd rather put up with a few hours of relative discomfort if it saves me 7k". Which is certainly a rational equation for someone on circa 100k a year. Burning over 10% of your post tax income on two five hour flights? I've travelled business class a fair bit and I certainly wouldn't burn 10% of my annual income on 10 hours of it. It's not that nice.

kyf_100 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also, again I seemed to remember that long haul airlines make their money off business. Cattle class is just about covering costs. The amounts you can get for a business seat is where all the profit comes from.

That was my understanding too. There is major profit in Biz and First. Especially if they can now charge ~£10k for Biz. Madness

So why would United ditch their premium cabins?

It would literally be cheaper for my former employer to send me out a day early, coach, put me up in a $1000 a night hotel room, give me a day off on the lash (all expenses paid) then show up to my meeting, and do the same in reverse back in London, than pay the additional 4-5k it costs post-Covid to send me business class.

I understand this equation will be slightly different for higher paid / more billable execs, but seriously - there can't be *that* many people for whom it's cheaper to fly them out for 8k than to give them a day off either side and fly them coach.

Add into that the sheer number of flights that must now be a zoom call, and you'd expect overall demand for business class flights to be dropping off a cliff, not flying through the roof. I don't get it.

Could it in fact be the opposite is happening - demand for business class seats has fallen substantially, therefore airlines are charging absolutely absurd prices for the very small segment of people willing to pay *any* price for face to face meetings (i.e. the part of the demand curve that's highly inelastic?)

Its not business people booking the business class tickets....its the upper middle class that made a load of money / saved a packet during COVID that are spending on personal travel (plus I imagine people from countries that have increased in wealth e.g. that massively expanding Chinese middle class).

That would make sense, except for the fact that I'm genuinely shocked anyone with an upper middle class income would be spending 8k on business class travel. I think you are in the top 5% of earners if you earn +100k, so even on 100k, are you going to be burning 8k on two 5 hour flights?

Look at Leon - not exactly short of a bob or two - and going "well, I'd rather put up with a few hours of relative discomfort if it saves me 7k". Which is certainly a rational equation for someone on circa 100k a year. Burning over 10% of your post tax income on two five hour flights? I've travelled business class a fair bit and I certainly wouldn't burn 10% of my annual income on 10 hours of it. It's not that nice.

Apparently yes they are. I think its the video i linked below that has some stats, basically saying average spend is way up for these people. They give an example of American spend in Greece, they are spending way more. Also remember those people on say $100-150k a year in the US, they didn't spend jack for 2 years & many now cut living costs with WFH / relocated to cheaper parts of US and do remote work. So money in the bank from covid + real estate sales + savings on WFH.

If it all goes pop in a year or two is another matter.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Leon said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also, again I seemed to remember that long haul airlines make their money off business. Cattle class is just about covering costs. The amounts you can get for a business seat is where all the profit comes from.

That was my understanding too. There is major profit in Biz and First. Especially if they can now charge ~£10k for Biz. Madness

So why would United ditch their premium cabins?

It would literally be cheaper for my former employer to send me out a day early, coach, put me up in a $1000 a night hotel room, give me a day off on the lash (all expenses paid) then show up to my meeting, and do the same in reverse back in London, than pay the additional 4-5k it costs post-Covid to send me business class.

I understand this equation will be slightly different for higher paid / more billable execs, but seriously - there can't be *that* many people for whom it's cheaper to fly them out for 8k than to give them a day off either side and fly them coach.

Add into that the sheer number of flights that must now be a zoom call, and you'd expect overall demand for business class flights to be dropping off a cliff, not flying through the roof. I don't get it.

Could it in fact be the opposite is happening - demand for business class seats has fallen substantially, therefore airlines are charging absolutely absurd prices for the very small segment of people willing to pay *any* price for face to face meetings (i.e. the part of the demand curve that's highly inelastic?)

It is strange. But I have been flying around the world almost non stop for a year and have not noticed Biz cabins getting smaller

This surge in prices also seems to be a transatlantic phenomenon. The other day I looked at a Biz class fight LHR-Bangkok in January 2023 and it was more expensive than pre covid but not much. 10% or so. Inflation explains it. The cost certainly hasn’t tripled

Maybe it is Americans in particular with the mighty dollar and a LOT of covid savings? There are noticeably large numbers of yanks in London, Rome, Florence, Seville, Lisbon - I’ve seen them

Huge amount of pent-up demand.

A nice echo of the 1920s, when comparatively rich Americans all went to impoverished postwar Europe - and wrote novels like Tender is the Night

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

Paying for wifi and gin....this sounds like you might not be in business class.....the horror.

American (and Americans) are becoming more and more expert at charging.

One of my guys in the mid west hand delivered some documents to the front desk of my hotel. Said hotel tried to charge me $10 to hand them over to me (claimed they had signed a contract with FedEx that required them to charge me).

Utterly ridiculous

kyf_100 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kyf_100 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kyf_100 said:

Leon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Also, again I seemed to remember that long haul airlines make their money off business. Cattle class is just about covering costs. The amounts you can get for a business seat is where all the profit comes from.

That was my understanding too. There is major profit in Biz and First. Especially if they can now charge ~£10k for Biz. Madness

So why would United ditch their premium cabins?

It would literally be cheaper for my former employer to send me out a day early, coach, put me up in a $1000 a night hotel room, give me a day off on the lash (all expenses paid) then show up to my meeting, and do the same in reverse back in London, than pay the additional 4-5k it costs post-Covid to send me business class.

I understand this equation will be slightly different for higher paid / more billable execs, but seriously - there can't be *that* many people for whom it's cheaper to fly them out for 8k than to give them a day off either side and fly them coach.

Add into that the sheer number of flights that must now be a zoom call, and you'd expect overall demand for business class flights to be dropping off a cliff, not flying through the roof. I don't get it.

Could it in fact be the opposite is happening - demand for business class seats has fallen substantially, therefore airlines are charging absolutely absurd prices for the very small segment of people willing to pay *any* price for face to face meetings (i.e. the part of the demand curve that's highly inelastic?)

Its not business people booking the business class tickets....its the upper middle class that made a load of money / saved a packet during COVID that are spending on personal travel (plus I imagine people from countries that have increased in wealth e.g. that massively expanding Chinese middle class).

That would make sense, except for the fact that I'm genuinely shocked anyone with an upper middle class income would be spending 8k on business class travel. I think you are in the top 5% of earners if you earn +100k, so even on 100k, are you going to be burning 8k on two 5 hour flights?

Look at Leon - not exactly short of a bob or two - and going "well, I'd rather put up with a few hours of relative discomfort if it saves me 7k". Which is certainly a rational equation for someone on circa 100k a year. Burning over 10% of your post tax income on two five hour flights? I've travelled business class a fair bit and I certainly wouldn't burn 10% of my annual income on 10 hours of it. It's not that nice.

Apparently yes they are. I think its the video i linked below that has some stats, basically saying average spend is way up for these people.

I'll believe the stats, but I find that absolutely mental. You can have a new rolex for less than the cost of the ten hour burn, that will last a lifetime (and can be sold for what you paid for it). For a couple, the flights are about the cost of a year's school fees at a half decent day school.

The opportunity cost just feels absolutely immense, when business class travel isn't really that good, and economy not that bad... it's five hours in a cramped chair with noise cancelling headphones and a couple of valium to tide you over FFS.

Spending 8k on a 10 hour return flight is, to me, the definition of torching money. I'd rather have a nice bit of jewellery, a 100 inch plasma tv in every room, or - sorry to be crude - a date with a high class escort every week for a year. Of course it's what you value - but I find it bizarre that people are burning that much money on something so... well... shit.

I agree, but if you’re on a six figure salary you probably already have the Rolex, and plenty of TVs, and few people use hookers weekly

There’s also a sense of ENJOY IT NOW. Plague has made everyone feel very mortal - what’s the point in being wealthy if you don’t spend it and take pleasure from it? You could be dead tomorrow

There were outbreaks of hedonistic excess after the Black Death. Peasants fornicating in fields, the rich copulating on church altars

mwadams said:

carnforth said:

Return to New York, 1st Nov to 8th Nov, cheapest found, class ascending:

Economy £401 jetblue
Premium Economy £763 norse
Business £2146 jetblue
First £7846 BA

JetBlue business is not really business class. More like premium premium economy.

It's not lie-flat?

Theres a ComRes in the Indy taken 21 to 23 October
Lab 51 (-1)
Con 25 (+3)
LD 8 (-3)
Only figures given

FrancisUrquhart said:

If you are travelling for pleasure, Nov surely has to be super low season. Who is coming to UK in Nov, clocks have gone back, its dark & rainy & not yet Christmas.

Used to see a lot of Japanese in the winter here. Not sure why. Of course, they don't have a currency advantage like the Americans. If nothing changes, my January trip to Tokyo is looking quite cheap.

(Since we're doing flight prices, I paid £749 for BA economy return. 13.5 hours though, rather than the usual 11.5 since they can't fly over Russia. So extra fuel costs.)

StillWaters said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

Paying for wifi and gin....this sounds like you might not be in business class.....the horror.

American (and Americans) are becoming more and more expert at charging.

One of my guys in the mid west hand delivered some documents to the front desk of my hotel. Said hotel tried to charge me $10 to hand them over to me (claimed they had signed a contract with FedEx that required them to charge me).

Utterly ridiculous

Hope you walked out with a few towels at least?

Thing I personally appreciate about fine old hotels in US cities, is that they generally offer some of the most superior public restrooms in the nation.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

StillWaters said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

Paying for wifi and gin....this sounds like you might not be in business class.....the horror.

American (and Americans) are becoming more and more expert at charging.

One of my guys in the mid west hand delivered some documents to the front desk of my hotel. Said hotel tried to charge me $10 to hand them over to me (claimed they had signed a contract with FedEx that required them to charge me).

Utterly ridiculous

Hope you walked out with a few towels at least?

Thing I personally appreciate about fine old hotels in US cities, is that they generally offer some of the most superior public restrooms in the nation.

I agree - one of the best things about the US is their ability to offer bathroom stalls larger than my flat.

Richard_Tyndall said:

EPG said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

EPG said:

UK median disposable income is £31k. The chart says £15.5k. A heroic amount of adjustment is happening to cut incomes by half, and you have to trust that the Resolution Foundation is being equally rigorous across all those countries rather than settling on the story.

If you don’t like these facts, EPG has others?

ONS: "Median household disposable income in the UK was £31,400 in financial year ending (FYE) 2021, which covered the first year of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic".

The numbers from the RF were PPP.

That's why I'm saying trust in the adjustment is crucial, because the adjustment seems to be doing the majority of work in generating the statistic. Housing costs is a bit controversial because most people's housing costs are also an investment in an asset; if you excluded Germans' savings, their incomes would also be lower.

As I explained above, this is the core problem. If working people are chucking most of their incomes at their housing, they don't have the spare cash to invest, to educate themselves, to have kids.

Working Germans are chucking their savings on investment products like private pensions. Working Singaporeans chuck their savings on compulsory savings accounts. It's not clear that this is a problem that is really worse in the UK than in other countries, simply because the saving product is labelled "house".

The problem is that Germans chucking their savings into private pensions and Singaporeans chucking their savings into compulsory savings accounts don't (as far as I know and I stand to be corrected) make either pensions or savings accounts more expensive for everyone else. Chucking savings into a finite resource like housing makes houses more expensive and prevents them being used for their primary purpose which is to provide people with somewhere to live.

People buying houses, who would otherwise be renting houses, don't make houses more expensive for everyone else. It's the demand for housing vis-a-vis the supply that makes houses more expensive, regardless of ownership. If they were like German renters, they would simply be driving up rents for the same basic reasons of supply. Now, there is a little caveat that people might prefer more expensive housing when they buy rather than rent, but given the tax benefits, it's hard to be sure that is really due to the fundamentals. (There is also a caveat that banks may lend too much to fund housing - but bubbles have also been heard of in the equities that other savers ultimately buy.)

There are 700,000 second homes in the UK. Your argument does not apply to them because no one is living in them.

I have two homes. I live in both. Not at the same time obviously.

mwadams said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

StillWaters said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

This means you can all enjoy my in-air commentary as I attempt to buy more than one gin at a time

Paying for wifi and gin....this sounds like you might not be in business class.....the horror.

American (and Americans) are becoming more and more expert at charging.

One of my guys in the mid west hand delivered some documents to the front desk of my hotel. Said hotel tried to charge me $10 to hand them over to me (claimed they had signed a contract with FedEx that required them to charge me).

Utterly ridiculous

Hope you walked out with a few towels at least?

Thing I personally appreciate about fine old hotels in US cities, is that they generally offer some of the most superior public restrooms in the nation.

I agree - one of the best things about the US is their ability to offer bathroom stalls larger than my flat.

Don't need quite THAT much space to do MY business. What I appreciate in a high-class crap-house, is frequency of cleaning, moderate demand, plentiful hot water, and honest-to-God cotton towels.

Commend the Four Seasons in downtown Seattle on this basis. At least pre-COVID.

Best hotel bar BTW (also FYI) is at Mayflower.

carnforth said:

Leon said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Film from Leon's last night at his dude's Arizona Dude Ranch -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=broKQIOYSNc
Muppets - Roy Rodgers And Dale Evans - Sing a medley

When Americans decide to enjoy themselves they really go for it. I guess it comes from having fewer holidays. Or more money.

All my holidays are cheap, because I choose to be on holiday six or eight weeks a year. Sometimes, when lying on a particularly poor bed in a particularly poor hotel, I fantasise about having a high pressure job where I can only take a week a year, thus justifying spending £5k on a single short holiday. Then I remember that I would have to actually do the job, and I feel better.

I used to have many holidays where the marginal cost of being on holiday was less than the cost of being at work (commuting, lunch, etc).

Only if I treated the tent and other camping equipment as a sunk cost though...

Are we expecting Braverman to persist with her plans to bankrupt U.K. universities through restricting foreign students?

alex_ said:

Are we expecting Braverman to persist with her plans to bankrupt U.K. universities through restricting foreign students?

The Home Office had funny views about students even in Theresa May's time running the department, insisting on counting students as immigrants.

Ron DeSantis refuses to rule out White House run, keeping Donald Trump on edge
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ron-desantis-refuses-to-rule-out-white-house-run-keeping-donald-trump-on-edge-2lpxlk5tm (£££)

ETA for context, the question was asked during a debate in the election to be Governor of Florida.

Update: Reuters: Representative of Britain at the UN: The Russian Federation has not provided any evidence regarding the possible use of a "dirty bomb" by Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1585106643162828801

.

El_Capitano said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The University of York has dropped students' initials from the email addresses it assigns people in a trans-friendly move.

The university traditionally used the first letters of a students' first name and surname to create their email and username for the duration of their time at the institution.

But it has now scrapped the practice to accommodate those who want to change their email addresses part way through their course because they changed their gender, or got married or divorced, and therefore changed their name.

Other reasons students wanted to change their email addresses from their original initials included adopting a Western name, or having "difficult" family relationships that meant they did not want to be associated with their surname.

The university has now said it will simply use randomly generated letters with no relation to the people involved.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/25/university-york-drops-students-initials-email-addresses-trans/

What so hard with if somebody changes their name just give them a new email address (and the old one just silently forwards if people keep sending the wrong address).

Cambridge assigns email addresses based on initials then an incrementing number. These numbers started from 1, though there were a few years when a sequence starting from 1000 was used (hence, I assume, rcs1000; I was of the same generation).

A few years before my time, someone decided to change their name by deed poll simply to “mathew” (no surname) in order to get the ultimate email address.

Unfortunately, the Computing Service was and is staffed by malevolent sociopaths, who took great delight in informing him: “We have issued you with the new email address xxm10@cam.ac.uk.”

So...

I started with phx.cam.ac.uk, an IBM S370, that was Cambridge University's main computer.

Everyone who signed up got a seven character username: their initials followed by a counter. I was the first rcs, and therefore was rcs1000. My best friend, and the second highest first in Cambridge Computer Science, was gpjt100. Another friend didn't have a middle name, and was jr10005.

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

EPG said:

UK median disposable income is £31k. The chart says £15.5k. A heroic amount of adjustment is happening to cut incomes by half, and you have to trust that the Resolution Foundation is being equally rigorous across all those countries rather than settling on the story.

If you don’t like these facts, EPG has others?

ONS: "Median household disposable income in the UK was £31,400 in financial year ending (FYE) 2021, which covered the first year of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic".

Those numbers make no sense, either for the UK or for other countries.

rcs1000 said:

.

El_Capitano said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The University of York has dropped students' initials from the email addresses it assigns people in a trans-friendly move.

The university traditionally used the first letters of a students' first name and surname to create their email and username for the duration of their time at the institution.

But it has now scrapped the practice to accommodate those who want to change their email addresses part way through their course because they changed their gender, or got married or divorced, and therefore changed their name.

Other reasons students wanted to change their email addresses from their original initials included adopting a Western name, or having "difficult" family relationships that meant they did not want to be associated with their surname.

The university has now said it will simply use randomly generated letters with no relation to the people involved.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/25/university-york-drops-students-initials-email-addresses-trans/

What so hard with if somebody changes their name just give them a new email address (and the old one just silently forwards if people keep sending the wrong address).

Cambridge assigns email addresses based on initials then an incrementing number. These numbers started from 1, though there were a few years when a sequence starting from 1000 was used (hence, I assume, rcs1000; I was of the same generation).

A few years before my time, someone decided to change their name by deed poll simply to “mathew” (no surname) in order to get the ultimate email address.

Unfortunately, the Computing Service was and is staffed by malevolent sociopaths, who took great delight in informing him: “We have issued you with the new email address xxm10@cam.ac.uk.”

So...

I started with phx.cam.ac.uk, an IBM S370, that was Cambridge University's main computer.

Everyone who signed up got a seven character username: their initials followed by a counter. I was the first rcs, and therefore was rcs1000. My best friend, and the second highest first in Cambridge Computer Science, was gpjt100. Another friend didn't have a middle name, and was jr10005.

I used that computer as a student, too, but I have no idea what my address would have been. You have good memories