EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
Are you saying that Thatcher was a socialist instead of a conservative? What do you think Reagan was? Socialism seems to work well in Germany but not in an Anglo-American context. Socialism in Germany seemed to have its origins in the times when they still had kings and kaisers. It continued through both world wars. Hitler espoused it. It's still around in modern Germany despite the democracy. Why do you suppose that it works there? The only answer I've ever heard anybody advance is that most of the people there are of the same racial and ethnic background. But this does begin to sound like Hitler with his National Socialism. I don't know how to explain it myself. But both times when I was in Germany I noticed that the people weren't all that diversified. And when you saw kids it was amazing how blond-haired and blue-eyed they were. And of course this is probably even more true in Scandanavia.
What do you mean that big cracks are appearing in the system of market driven global capitalism. What cracks do you see? Where? You say it's not clear what adjustment is in process. But you must have an opinion about its "shape".
Why do you think Thatcher’s image in the US was different than the reality?
Linda wrote: "Are you saying that Thatcher was a socialist instead of a conservative? What do you think Reagan was? Socialism seems to work well in Germany but not in an Anglo-American context. Socialism in Ge..."
These are some very interesting themes but a proper reply will have to wait till morning as I have company for dinner which I now have to prepare! Afterwards I will be tired, so tomorrow, but I like your thoughts.
Linda wrote: "Are you saying that Thatcher was a socialist instead of a conservative? What do you think Reagan was? Socialism seems to work well in Germany but not in an Anglo-American context. Socialism in Ge..."
I think the American view of what socialism is differs from Europe. In Europe socialism is a partnership between the state and the private sector to ensure the economy works in a way that benefits both labour and business to create a balanced society with a high poverty threshold, below which very few fall. This is driven by a more highly populated, crowded environment. But it is full democratic and only exists because people vote for it in free elections. Communism is a more extreme version of the same idea, which is not democratic and imposed as a universal system.
Capitalism holds that it is the markets which know best and the individual should be free to provide for themselves and their families.This is America's way and any sort of welfare or collective effort is seen as socialist.
However your education system is far more socialist than ours as well as things like your national parks and democracy in which everybody in any kind of public office is elected.
Thatcher hated the state but she loved centralized power, which is a contradiction and she created the most centralised government structure in the West. But she also privatised all the state monopolies and sold off all the social housing cheap. The housing was owned by the local authorities but she took the money to central government to prevent the locals building new ones. We now have a major housing crisis.
Another example is power generation. We had the most advanced power system in the world and led in nuclear energy. Our power was cheap and we had plenty of it. In winter we always had a 20% margin at peak times. Thirty years on, none of the power stations have been upgraded or replaced and we are now operating a 1% margin and we hare having to pay industry to switch off production between 4pm and 8pm to avoid outages. We no longer have the skills to build nuclear so we are having to go to the Chinese and the French and pay through the nose.
Thatcher is always seen as a hero to the Americans because of the ending of the Cold War. She was thought to be a wonder here too, but now that all the problems are emerging her reputation is tarnished. I thought her selfish, narrow minded, over simplistic, hectoring and conceited.
The cracks in global capitalism are emerging because too much growth was funded by debt and the debt burden is now dangerously high. The power behind the growth was and still is China, which will shortly overtake the US and the largest economy, but China has finished its industrialisation faze and is now turning towards domestic consumption. Its economy is slowing and it is therefore using less. Oil has dropped in price by half, as have almost all commodities. This is having a knock on effect and will slow everything down.The US does import form China but it is easily capable of being self sufficient and it will be able to adjust. Europe will be hard hit as will the emerging markets in South America and Asia. China has been such a phenomenon because it retains control of its markets. The West has let its markets run free and they have ended in a bad place, which is going to cost to put right.
America is interesting. It always talks about free markets, but it actually controls much more than it proclaims. This will be its strength as the downturn picks up pace.
In the UK debt is a major problem. It is historically high per household and externally we owe more money than any other country in the world apart from the US.That is the icing on the cake of Thatcher's legacy. We also import 80% of everything we consume. That is ridiculous for a former industrial power. We have just shut down our last steel works ending steel production in the UK after nearly 200 years.
Suddenly everything you say sounds like Greek to me. I'll have to run all this by Gary to see what he says. I wouldn't think that the state partners well with capitalism at all, which is essentially a private thing. But one thing you could do is explain the difference between the way Britain works as a "socialist" state and the way Germany works as a socialist state. You say Europe as if all the countries in Europe work the same way.
I think that government interference or socialism makes things more expensive and of poorer quality than private initiative controlling the same things. I could give very specific examples. We just got done filling out our income tax forms last night. There's this new crazy thing about the current administration's health insurance requirements. Our old plan got disqualified. Now they are trying to jack up the rates to give you less for more money. There's enormous resistance on this issue. Every few months the government scales something back and creates a new exception. Also the penalty for non compliance has been gutted. Before you were supposed to get fined if you didn't buy their insurance. Now you get fined but they can't collect it if you refuse to pay. The only way they can collect it is to withhold a tax refund if you're supposed to get one. But you can easily arrange your taxes so you don't get one. In other words, it's not serious and is all nonsense.To judge by what my mother is experiencing in her rehab clinic it shows the failures of the beginnings of socialized medicine in this country. My mother hates the place. She says she isn't getting much rehab and would like much more. We call her doctors. They refuse to return our calls. They won't even call my sister's husband who is a doctor himself. She wants to hire a private duty assistant but they won't pay any attention to her. My father has a policy that won't kick in for 100 days, but it's not clear whether they will honor that either. That would hire a private assistant, too, if she still needs it. Doctors used to call you back. Now we got an ad in the mail that advertises a doctor who will answer questions and even make a few house calls if you agree to pay him $50.00/month/person in advance. In other words what you once got for free now you have to pay extra for and it's outside the new government health system. Yuck!
My friend in Austria has made references to her health system. It seems to work better even though it has clinics and is obviously "socialist". She has talked about "lightning service" as well as plenty of phone contact. Having a baby, for instance, is like a walk in service. Can you explain why these things work in Germany but not here or in Britain?
I agree that our school system smacks of socialism. I once taught in high school and became convinced that public education doesn't work very well. If you learn anything, you're self taught or your parents help you with homework or even your friends. The teachers don't teach you anything. I don't think I learned much when I was in grade school, junior high, or high school with few exceptions. However, when I got to college, I learned a lot. That was private and you had to pay for it. I especially learned a lot at Bryn Mawr and Haverford as opposed to Duke and the University of Virginia. Born Mawr and Haverford had small classes. I once was in a seminar with two students and a professor. Especially when it comes to handicapped education private education is almost essential. Gary has been involved in cases about this. The parents of the handicapped students want individualized attention. Gary was involved in a case four years ago about a girl who had sensitivity to mold, and that's why her parents had moved to Arizona. But the public schools here didn't want to pay to send her a private instructor in her house because the school building was found to be contaminated with some sort of mold spores. This case turned out to be very dramatic in its fallout, and it's too complicated to go into right now. It involved very dirty politics having to do with local government and in the end when Gary started to win the case the local authorities hired a lawyer who was in their pay and they started to go after Gary. This all plays into the image of Bad Evil Arizona. But the point here is that if the parents could have afforded to send the girl to a private school none of this would have happened. Socialized handicapped education doesn't work very well. Even back in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania where I came from and where they had a public school for the handicapped called Pathfinder the parents of handicapped students back there never seemed to be happy with the school either and were engaged in constant litigation.
The point is that each country interprets these 'isms' in a different way. The American way is to place the individual above everything. Europe which is more crowded tends to see a partnership between state and the private sector, some countries more than others and some political parties more than others. We went through a period after the war when the state ran everything. Then we moved away from that but too far. We created privately owned monopaolies funded by taxpayer subsidies which is the worst of all worlds. That was Thatcher's doing and that of her successors following in her footsteps.There is much more diversity around than Americans tend to think. You have travelled so you understand this. No two countries are the same, but all have similarities. There is no ' correct ' way.
The Germans are more efficient at organising and planning. But they are less flexible. So when things go wrong they are slow to react. Volkswagen for example. Also the Germans love obeying rules and following orders. The Britis hate both.
I was contrasting private and public education in the US. Anything public is always slightly socialist I guess. But it's not a national kind of socialism. Did you know that public education in the US is almost strictly a state matter, state and local. Most local property taxes go to the schools. The state licenses everything and sets up requirements. The feds rarely get involved. One example of involvement was Brown vs. Board of Education in the 50's. Another is the handicapped act.
Linda wrote: "I was contrasting private and public education in the US. Anything public is always slightly socialist I guess. But it's not a national kind of socialism. Did you know that public education in the ..."I think I kind of knew it was a state matter because of the segregation issues of the sixties, but I always feel most of every day America is run by the states. I think many people I have met regard the Federal gov. as interfering. All my American connections seem to hate federal taxes.
We got a letter from Volkswagen just the other day. This is the letter in full if you're curious:"Earlier this month Volkswagen Group of America Inc and Volkswagen AG received notice from the US environmental Protection Agency, US Dept of Justice and the California Air Resources Board informing us that those agencies had determined that certain 2.0 L 4 cylinder TDI vehicles do not comply with emissions standards. According to our records, you own or lease one of these vehicles. (Footnote reference to our vehicle VW Jetta SportWagen TDI Model Years 2009-2014). I am writing you today to offer a personal and profound apology. Volkswagen has violated your trust. I understand and fully appreciate your anger and frustration. I would like you to know that we take full responsibility and are cooperating with all responsible agencies. I can also assure you that we are committed to making this right for you --- and taking steps to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Right now we are working hard to remedies to bring vehicles into emissions compliance as soon as possible. Getting this right will take some time, but we will notify you immediately once we have more information. Until then please know that your vehicle reminds both safe to drive and legal to drive as note by the EPA in its September 18 press release. You do not need to take any action at this time. All we ask for is your patience. Along with our parent company Volkswagen AG, we are committed at every level of our company to do what must be done to begin to regain your trust. If you have any questions or concerns please contract our Customer CARE Center at vwcustomercare@vw.com or by calling 1800-822-8987. You can also visit www.vwdieselinfo.com. Thank you for understanding and for being our very valued customer. Sincerely Michael Horn Presient and CEO Volkswagen Group of America, Inc."
What do you mean by "privately owned monopolies funded by taxpayer subsidies"? I understand what a privately owned monopoly would be. It's like what AT&T used to be in this country when it almost singlehandedly ran the phone service before it was broken up. But it wasn't funded by taxpayer subsidies. That's the part I don't understand. Give me an example.
Linda wrote: "What do you mean by "privately owned monopolies funded by taxpayer subsidies"? I understand what a privately owned monopoly would be. It's like what AT&T used to be in this country when it almost s..."Quite a good example is the railways.These used to be state owned, like most European railways post war but in the final privatisation binge in the nineties there were sold off. But to help the shareholder profits taxpayers pay a contribution to their running costs and regulators hold down the fares. To me this is absurd. Either it is private where it sinks or swims or it is public and subject to democratic control, ie if it fails you fire the government.
Another nonsense was that public institutions like schools and hospitals used to employ their own cleaners. Now they have to contract out the service to private companies, whose only function is to clean public buildings. So all their revenue comes from taxpayers, who have no say. These firms are slapdash and do a poor job more often than not. It is the same deal with trash collection.
My view is simple. If taxpayers pay, taxpayers control. If shareholders fund, shareholders control and profit.
There are some valid examples where both the government and private shareholders jointly own something. A good example of that is the worlds biggest bank, RBS which was bust in 2008 and the government took an 80% shareholding and pumped in billions to save it. It still makes losses so it cannot be sold off yet.
It is where the Queen banks. Nobody fancied turning up at Buckingham Palace to tell over a cup of tea that she had lost all her money. She did get wind of what was going on and sent for the Governor of the Bank of England (our Fed) for a report. Interestingly she did that while her prime minister, Gordon Brown was over in the US talking to Bush. She had herself photographed with the governor and it was on all the front pages in the morning. It was her way of showing her people she was on the case.
Here the US Post Office was partially privatized a while back. I don't know exactly what the % is. But ever since that happened the post office has been scaling back services. There is a wild rumor going around that Amazon.com is going to buy the post office. Bezos is giving increasing amounts of business to the post office. Ditto FEDEX ground. He has a tiff with UPS. He doesn't like the union workers. He wants everybody to deliver on Sundays for one thing.Amtrak, the US railroad, also is partially private with large government subsidies to keep it afloat. It was created some time ago, merging old railroad lines that used to be totally private. No one ever expects Amtrak to make a profit especially on long distance lines as opposed to computer routes. The only reason it's allowed to continue is for political reasons. Certain senators and congressmen want long distance rail service to continue in rural areas where there is no other public transportation or something like that.
As far as banks go, I don't even know the answer here. Every so often there's a banking crisis. For instance in 2008 when the markets dropped suddenly about this time of year and housing prices fell, etc. Certain investment firms went out of business such as Merrill Lynch. It ended up being bought I think by Bank of America. Here certain banks such as Bank of America and Wells Fargo get bigger by the year. But I think they are still private. The bank we have is an investment firm called Fidelity, which is large, too, and private.
What does RBS stand for? Does the Queen really put her money in a bank? That sounds so pleb. You'd think there would be a castle full of gold instead and that would be her money sort of a like a fairytale. Does she actually have debit and credit cards and the like? Really wild! Here the President of the US by some sort of tradition --- I don't know when it started --- releases his income tax records to the public every year. Do you have income taxes? Does the Queen pay taxes, too? It's hard to imagine.
Royal Bank of Scotland. It owns several other banks including Coutts & Co, which is the Queen's bank. She has normal bank accounts and a big share portfolio. I think staff pay her bills. I don't think she carries Amex or whatever.Yes she pays income tax etc. She gets an allowance towards the cost of running the monarchy as head of state, but she pays for a lot of it, including the Royal 'family' herself.
A few blogs back you said that Britain imports 80% of everything that it consumes. How is that? Do you import much food? That was how Britain got in trouble in WW1, wasn't it? During WW2 you had victory gardens or something like that.
You say you have ended steel production in the UK for the first time in 200 years. I came from Pittsburgh, steel capital of the US. I guess some steel is still made there, but much less. Mostly steel is made abroad. Did you read an article about the shutdown of the last factory? Is this environmentalism gone mad or what?
Just a quick response as off out. we do import food but we always have but we produce a lot as well. What I meant was we import all the consumer goods which are the backbone of the economy.The reason we had to shut down the steel is actually not what people think. It is a combination of the pound being too high and energy costs being too high, so we not only cannot export any, but imports are far cheaper.
If imports are far cheaper you should cut the costs of production in the UK to become competitive again. When we drove through the Ruhr Valley in Germany the smokestacks were going. I took a video which I haven't yet viewed. I don't know what they were making.Do they still make steel?
It is not the costs that are the problem. The problem is the currency. It makes imports cheap and exports expensive. It's a no brainer when you think about it. In America you get for ten dollars what you get for ten pounds here. But if you are American you have to cough up sixteen dollars to change for ten pounds. Equally if we send you what you could get for ten dollars home made, you have to pay sixteen dollars if we make it. Nobody does that except for luxury items where the more it costs the better they like it.
I was exploring your blog. Are you writing a book called Dynamic Socialism? Does that go with Quantitative Easing? Also you talk about tax subsidies for renters. Here in the US they have rent controls in various cities Gary worked on a case about this. He was helping a lady stay in her apartment. The landlord wanted her out. He wanted to sell the unit as a condo or at the very least charge more rent to someone else and make it more upscale. I've always thought that was one of the basic problems with socialism --- greed. What do you do about the inclination most people have to accumulate things that belong to them?
My theory in the book which I will send you when finished is a partnership between state and private where each do what they are best at and which engages capitalism as well as socialism. As you will see from the book there is some confusion of terminology between the US and UK and we do not always mean the same things. Here rents have risen out of control to the point where the people who would want to live in the house cannot afford to. Now the socialist solution over here would be to put in rent controls, so that landlords could only charge affordable prices. But the Thatcherite Tories use taxpayers money to pay the difference to the private landlords costing over $ 30 billion per year. That keeps rents high and also keeps property prices high. That is our version of capitalism which I am completely opposed to. Likewise we allow employers to pay ultra low wages which increases their profits and use the taxpayers to top the pay up to a living wage. That again is absurd but it is all Tory policy, also followed by Blair's Labour. Those two policies alone cost the taxpayer £50 billion per year and the interest the government has to pay each year on the money it has borrowed because it cannot raise enough taxes to pay for this stuff comes to another £ 50 billion. To you that's a waste of $150 billion pa. It is ludicrous. But house prices keep on going up and up so the Tories all feel rich. But it cannot last.
The British currency has always been worth more than the US dollar. About one hundred years ago (at least before WW1) the British pound was worth about 5 times what the dollar was worth, I think. I remember a reference to it in the Mary Poppins movie. It seems to be some British tradition. Since it's so well-established, I don't know if you can just change it, can you?
Rent controls exist here in the US in certain cities and regions such as New York City. I have never lived in such a city, so I don't know much about it, and I haven't rented an apartment in awhile. The last place we rented was called Four Seasons in Charlottesville before we bought our first house which was a duplex in a subdivision called Briarwood. The rent for the apartment was cheaper than buying a house but not by much. I think the difference was less than $100.00/month. Now rents are getting more expensive across America. It's getting to the point that it's cheaper to buy a house in many areas than it is to rent, especially if you are talking about renting a townhouse or a house instead of just a unit in an apartment building. But even the units are almost on par with mortgages.Rent control here for the most part is associated with low income housing.
On a totally different subject I just realized that when we were in Charlottesville this summer we took photos of our old houses. That might interest you. I should send them to you along with the photos of the farmhouse or "plantation house" we rented for one week.
Gary says that here when you have rent control the city or locality doesn't pay back the difference to the landlord. They just impose rent controls. Also the business about the government making up the difference in wages is something I've never heard of. That sounds like a great deal for employees for sure. Does this apply to all industries and businesses? I have a hard time believing it applies to small businesses for instance. Does it apply to part-time workers or just full-time workers? This is fascinating, and I'd like to hear more about it. And how does your government decide what is the "right" or "average" wage that everybody is entitled to? What is the correct salary for an accountant? For a lawyer? An auto worker? Does it even apply to the professions or just to workers in unions or blue collar workers? Surely it doesn't apply to people engaged in avocations such as writing novels! But our Russian expert said that was true in the Soviet Union. Writers were hired by the state, told what to write, and given state wages at least in theory. Supposedly in the Soviet Union all sorts of workers didn't really get their salaries on time. They didn't get goods they ordered on time either. There is a joke about a man who ordered a car. The company said they'd deliver it in ten years. The man said in the morning or the afternoon. The company asked why it mattered since it was ten years off. The man replied because the plumber is coming in the afternoon.
I just had an idea. You say you're writing a book about this. Do you know any cartoonists? You should get a freelance cartoonist to team up with you. He could draw cartoons to illustrate points you are making about economics in your book.
Linda wrote: "Gary says that here when you have rent control the city or locality doesn't pay back the difference to the landlord. They just impose rent controls. Also the business about the government making up..."I have internet connection problems at the moment and the engineer will not come till Thursday 22nd, so don't be surprised if I go off line.
We have a national minimum wage below which employers cannot go, but the subsidy works via the tax system. Depending on your earnings, how many children, single parent only working part time etc. if your income falls within certain criteria you get a tax credit. That means instead of paying income tax, the tax authorities pay you. But it is only for low incomes and above a quite low level it is no longer available. So it does not apply to people with good jobs, but supermarket checkout single mums may get it for example.
We have no rent controls anywhere. We did have but they went years ago. There is some low cost rental housing but it is in very short supply. The average house price is now about $320,000.
Linda wrote: "I just had an idea. You say you're writing a book about this. Do you know any cartoonists? You should get a freelance cartoonist to team up with you. He could draw cartoons to illustrate points you..."I don't think it is really that kind of book. If I go to a conventional publisher it is something they could do.
Linda wrote: "Gary says that here when you have rent control the city or locality doesn't pay back the difference to the landlord. They just impose rent controls. Also the business about the government making up..."I like the joke.
Linda wrote: "Rent controls exist here in the US in certain cities and regions such as New York City. I have never lived in such a city, so I don't know much about it, and I haven't rented an apartment in awhile..."
Oh yes do send house pics, but wait a few days as at present the connection is so bad I doubt I would be able to open them.
Here there is something called welfare for those who are poor and unemployed. They have food stamps too. But the idea of getting a supplement from the government for incomes below a certain level is something I've never heard of. What I have heard of is people with one part time job getting another part time job, too. I once had a babysitter/plant sitter who also was a bank teller and who also worked in a tanning salon all at the same time to make ends meet.
Oh yes we have people doing multiple jobs here too, in order to make ends meet. We have all these well paid jobs at the top end, but at the bottom end there aren't enough good jobs, because we have so little industry etc. Also apparently about 80% of new jobs are self employed and often they do not produce much income.
Out of interest what is your take on the Russian take-over in Syria and the surprise shift in UK foreign policy to move closer to China, now described as our new best friend.Also the huge victory for the Left in Canada and their announcement they are pulling their jets out of the US coalition against IS?
Big shifts going on.
You've got me confused. Now you say you don't have rent control. But yesterday you said that the Thatcherite Tories used taxpayer money to pay the difference to the private landlords. You said the socialist solution was to impose rent controls.I thought what you meant was that you have rent controls but the landlord was paid the difference between what he was required to charge and what he could charge by the government.
You now say low cost rental housing is in short supply. Where does everybody else live? If they work in a supermarket, how do they pay the rent then?
I read an article on the Fidelity website that the construction of rental housing (apartment buildings) is what is now fueling the housing market in the US. They say that new housing starts of the more conventional variety (single family housing) is mostly confined to the southern tier and especially the South. Also what I discovered when I was buying a house at the beginning of last year was that all new housing subdivisions are part of HOA's. Even though they look like single family houses with small yards they are a form of condo ownership. In other words your title to the property is limited. It's a form of group housing where the community imposes dues you have to pay and imposes rules you have to obey or you can lose ownership of your house. I wasn't aware until last year about how far this HOA movement had gone in America. I thought it was still possible to purchase a new house that you owned all by yourself without a condo intervening. With facts like these I wonder about the future of people owning their own houses. Everything is moving towards rentals just as car ownership here is moving towards leasing as I've discovered while we test drive cars. What do you think of all this? I guess it's good for asset protection but not much else.
Linda wrote: "You now say low cost rental housing is in short supply. Where does everybody else live? If they work in a supermarket, how do they pay the rent then?"Linda wrote: "You've got me confused. Now you say you don't have rent control. But yesterday you said that the Thatcherite Tories used taxpayer money to pay the difference to the private landlords. You said the ..."
No rent controls mean that it is forbidden by law to charge more than the amount set by the government.
We don't have any rent controls now. What happens is this. Private landlords charge whatever they like way beyond what people can afford, so the government pays the difference between what the tenant can afford and what the landlord wants. Hence rents go on going up and so do property values. All subsided by the taxpayer. Needless to say all the landlords vote Tory. It is nut case economics.
Linda wrote: "I read an article on the Fidelity website that the construction of rental housing (apartment buildings) is what is now fueling the housing market in the US. They say that new housing starts of the ..."This is big subject which I will expand on for you when I have got more time. Also difficult working with intermittent internet.
That's a contradiction in terms to say 80% of new "jobs" are self-employed. If they are "jobs" they have salaries and thus can't be self-employed. But I guess it's a matter of terminology. If you mean "work opportunities" I guess they could be self-employed. For instance, we know a Russian translator. That work is all freelance. There's lots of work to do all the time. There's an expanding pool of clients. But the work pays only about $.12/word. Even if you work hours/day you make only about an average salary at best. And there's little opportunity to improve on that unless you skip the translation agencies and get a good "end client" on your own. And this is an example of white collar self-employment. By the way this is expanding in the US, too, to the point that it's starting to affect the tax system.
You ask my take on several matters in the news: 1)Russian takeover of Syria 2)UK shift toward China 3)left victory in Canada and pulling jets out of a coalition against IS. I haven't heard about any of these matters until now. I'll have to ask Gary and write back later. As you know I don't frequently pay much attention to the news. P.S. Based on a tradition that I haven't followed since the Presidential election of 2008 I am going to follow the Presidential election next year. For the first time in 8 years I'm going to follow an event in the news. No matter who wins it can't be the current occupant of the White House. I'm sure you'll be following it too.
When you say it's forbidden by law to charge more for rents than the amount set by the government you must mean for certain specified properties. The government doesn't set rates for all properties in England, does it?
Yesterday I found articles about eroding property ownership in the New York Times. In the US they were still blaming the housing crisis of 2008 for the debacle. Lots of people got foreclosed on and now can't get mortgages because of their poor credit. But there are other factors, too. They say that first time homebuyers have too many other debts to qualify for mortgages unless standards are relaxed. The biggest barrier is the down payment. Very few people other than investors, of course, buy a house for cash and skip the mortgage process. Of course if you skip the mortgage, the seller of the house will favor you and give you a discount on the price. But what disturbs me the most are the HOA's or Homeowners Associations. How do they work in Britain? Here they act like local governments that aren't elected which seems illegal to me. What's even worse is that in most cases the board of the HOA is composed of homeowners in the subdivision and aren't professional managers Lots of backbiting goes on and discrimination against your neighbors. Unpopular people can be driven out of a neighborhood. The HOA has the power to fine you if they imagine you're not obeying a rule. If you don't pay they can foreclose on your house in the subdivision. The potential for disaster seems so great that I would never ever participate in such a system. But that means I can't own a new house unless I have enough money to hire a builder and an architect, purchase my own land, and build a custom house. I think this is absolutely outrageous. I don't know why more laws haven't been enacted against it.
Do you have HOAs? How do they work?
Linda wrote: "That's a contradiction in terms to say 80% of new "jobs" are self-employed. If they are "jobs" they have salaries and thus can't be self-employed. But I guess it's a matter of terminology. If you m..."Yes I agree with all that, which is why unemployment is under recorded in the UK, with too many people scratching half a living doing freelance stuff, but the gov. counts them as 'employed' as it is good for the figures.
Linda wrote: "When you say it's forbidden by law to charge more for rents than the amount set by the government you must mean for certain specified properties. The government doesn't set rates for all properties..."We do not have rent controls nowadays so there is no answer to your question. Last time they were frozen, so as prices went up rents became relatively cheaper. Public housing built by local authorities charged very affordable rents for people on low incomes. We had nine million such houses in the post war period, but Thatcher sold most of them off.
Linda wrote: "Yesterday I found articles about eroding property ownership in the New York Times. In the US they were still blaming the housing crisis of 2008 for the debacle. Lots of people got foreclosed on and..."We have a certain amount of collective ownership in blocks of apartments which are owned rather than rented, in order to maintain the fabric of the building etc, but nothing remotely like your HOA, which sounds more like a Gulag. I would not go near such a thing.
Oh yes definitely. Germany had to set up an enduring and open democracy after WWII. It had to be more on the American model than the British, which is only a partial democracy. De Gaulle adopted an American style president for the fifth republic, but the parliament is nearer the British version than the US Congress.