Home Politics and Debate

Free Market and Social Services

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Bit like all other political theories really.
    but your willing to argue for it whilst knowing it doesn't work!
    at least blag believes ...his choices have a chance of working?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but your willing to argue for it whilst knowing it doesn't work!
    at least blag believes ...his choices have a chance of working?

    Er, but I'm not arguing for free market capitalism - as I keep saying that there needs to be some sort of state interference.

    However, whilst I don't think it works well I think it works better than what the economic system Blagsta advocates.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Free Market and Social Services
    MrG wrote:
    i didnt bother reading that, it got boring pretty much right away, and many people here wouldnt know what you were on about
    Dear MrG and Teh Gerbil, when you see a post which you don't understand it or it does not suit your fancy you can walk away quietly. You don't need to advertise your ignorance so loudly!

    Oops, I forgot the level of my audience!
    Teagan wrote:
    Whatever ... *yawns*

    P.s. I presume you cut-and-pasted this topic rather than ACTUALLY waste your life typing it all up .. ?
    and
    Teh Gerbil wrote:
    Good, im not the only one to think its cut n paste.
    I presume this is an easy way to vent out your frustrations! Intelligence does not come without an effort!

    May God Bless us all,
    Unes
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    Lack of housing is caused by government interference.
    Kind of agree. Here we have groups of people up and down the country reasonably squatting properties that have been empty for years, and the government goes and forces them out.

    What's the point in that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    You have a different view of facts than me - unmitigated disaster seems an opinion.

    What would you call people rioting and being killed over water privatisation in Bolivia then? A roaring success?

    NQA wrote:
    No it doesn't. But then thats not the point of economic liberalism. the theory is that by not giving employees protection it makes buisness more flexible and efficient, reducing the prices goods costs (ie making them more affordable to people) and at the same time efficient companies want the best employees and so compete for them. I accept its not like that in practice - which is why I'm not an absolutist.

    Yes, this is also my point. Free market policies are damaging to people.

    NQA wrote:
    Most people can afford to buy. OK London's a special case, but even then most people can afford it (even if they wait and do it through right to buy or right to acquire or are older and more stable than in other parts of the country) and the housing problem wasn't caused by people buying their houses - but by the fact that there are more people wanting housing in London than there is available stock. RTB has no effect on that.

    You think most people in London can afford to buy? :eek: What planet are you living on? Or do you just hang out with posh people? The housing problem was very much caused by RTB. There is very little social housing left, its very very difficult to get housed. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to come down to my office and explain to my clients where they're going wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote:
    Lack of housing is caused by government interference.

    Yes, government intereference in pushing neo-liberal policy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Er, but I'm not arguing for free market capitalism - as I keep saying that there needs to be some sort of state interference.

    However, whilst I don't think it works well I think it works better than what the economic system Blagsta advocates.

    I don't think you even know what I advocate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Free market = anarchy.
    What would you call people rioting and being killed over water privatisation in Bolivia then? A roaring success?

    Privatisation has nothing to do with the free market, it's a collectivist/socialist scheme, state maintained.
    Yes, this is also my point. Free market policies are damaging to people.

    Interfering with the free market is damaging to people. You don't have a "free market" policy, btw, the free market is what naturally occurs. You can only use state violence and coercion to subvert it.

    Saying that the free market is akin to privatisation is like using the term "anarchy" to refer to people rioting and looting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you mean anarchy? Or anarchism? I think the free market would bring anarchy, as in total disorder and the breakdown of society. It sure as hell ain't got anything to do with anarchism though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there isn't a lack of housing, there's a lack of housing people want whilst theres entire streets of boarded up houses in some parts of the country

    if that doesnt signify theres a huge gap in wealth, i dont know what does
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is a lack of affordable housing in London. Me and my partner are paying £1000/month for our flat. Add in council tax and bills and we haven't got much left over. A lot of my clients are stuck in temporary accomodation due to the lack of social housing and the massive waiting lists. Private rents are too expensive, add in the 1 month or 6 week deposit needed to move and they need £1000+ to move. Impossible when on benefits or low wages. There are some tenancy support and rent deposit schemes - some of my clients have taken advantage of these to get out of hostels and into their own privately rented flats. They're now stuck on benefits as housing benefit is paying rents of £170+/week and they can't afford to pay that out of a salary unless they get quite a good job. You see the mess that London is in? A lot of this is a direct result of right to buy, the abolition of the fair rent act, the block on councils building social housing and the introduction of neo-liberal policies. All a result of Thatcher and then Blair.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    There is a lack of affordable housing in London. Me and my partner are paying £1000/month for our flat. Add in council tax and bills and we haven't got much left over. A lot of my clients are stuck in temporary accomodation due to the lack of social housing and the massive waiting lists. Private rents are too expensive, add in the 1 month or 6 week deposit needed to move and they need £1000+ to move. Impossible when on benefits or low wages. There are some tenancy support and rent deposit schemes - some of my clients have taken advantage of these to get out of hostels and into their own privately rented flats. They're now stuck on benefits as housing benefit is paying rents of £170+/week and they can't afford to pay that out of a salary unless they get quite a good job. You see the mess that London is in? A lot of this is a direct result of right to buy, the abolition of the fair rent act, the block on councils building social housing and the introduction of neo-liberal policies. All a result of Thatcher and then Blair.


    the block on building council housing is the worst thing imo

    i dont mind people being able to buy council housing, it should of been done so you couldnt sell on until after 5 years of buying it, and the money councils got, should of went back into building more amenities and housing
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    What would you call people rioting and being killed over water privatisation in Bolivia then? A roaring success?.

    No - but then my point is that you can't judge capitalism solely by its failures, but also by its success.





    Yes, this is also my point. Free market policies are damaging to people.

    So is socialism. You need a mixture of both.

    You think most people in London can afford to buy? :eek: What planet are you living on? Or do you just hang out with posh people? The housing problem was very much caused by RTB. There is very little social housing left, its very very difficult to get housed. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to come down to my office and explain to my clients where they're going wrong

    I'm living on planet Earth - in London. And I hang out with people who mainly work in the public sector and certainly aren't on massive salaries (though many of us are on quite good). If only the very rich could afford housing the housing market would collapse as there wouldn't be enough people able to afford them and house prices would fall. Basic economics. The housing shortage isn't caused by RTB - with or without RTB there would be the same number of houses - people didn't just buy their homes, dismantle them brick by brick and take them somewhere else. The housing shortage is caused by there being too much demand and not enough supply. RTB is irrelevant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    No - but then my point is that you can't judge capitalism solely by its failures, but also by its success.








    So is socialism. You need a mixture of both.




    I'm living on planet Earth - in London. And I hang out with people who mainly work in the public sector and certainly aren't on massive salaries (though many of us are on quite good). If only the very rich could afford housing the housing market would collapse as there wouldn't be enough people able to afford them and house prices would fall. Basic economics. The housing shortage isn't caused by RTB - with or without RTB there would be the same number of houses - people didn't just buy their homes, dismantle them brick by brick and take them somewhere else. The housing shortage is caused by there being too much demand and not enough supply. RTB is irrelevant.

    yeh and the private developers only build for the middle class now.... and they purposely avoid building enough housing to increase profits
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    No - but then my point is that you can't judge capitalism solely by its failures, but also by its success.



    Oh yes, that's the contradictions of capitalism. Its provided lots of great things - at what cost though?



    NQA wrote:
    So is socialism. You need a mixture of both.

    Explain?

    NQA wrote:
    I'm living on planet Earth - in London. And I hang out with people who mainly work in the public sector and certainly aren't on massive salaries (though many of us are on quite good). If only the very rich could afford housing the housing market would collapse as there wouldn't be enough people able to afford them and house prices would fall. Basic economics. The housing shortage isn't caused by RTB - with or without RTB there would be the same number of houses - people didn't just buy their homes, dismantle them brick by brick and take them somewhere else. The housing shortage is caused by there being too much demand and not enough supply. RTB is irrelevant.

    Very few people I know can afford to buy - me and my partner certainly can't, not unless we get keyworker status or we wait until our parents die. We both work in the public sector. Hardly anyone I know owns in London - and I know a lot of people. The shortage in social housing was caused by RTB and its consequences and the other things I just mentioned. Unless you can explain to me why there is far less social housing than there used to be?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That doesn't make sense, no single developer would be able to build enough to make a significant dent in the housing price.

    Thus a single developer would be better to build more housing to maximise profits, unless their was collusion between the developers, which if course is illegal........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you mean anarchy? Or anarchism? I think the free market would bring anarchy, as in total disorder and the breakdown of society. It sure as hell ain't got anything to do with anarchism though.

    Yeah I think it would too, if you suddenly imposed it upon people who had been used to being told what to do. You'd have to shift to it through a series of changes. (a la Marx, but in the other direction) I quite agree that the sudden removal of the bulk of the state has been a disaster in Russia, because you have on the one hand a class of people used to being told what to do and generally secure in their places suddenly left to fend for themselves. On the other, the usual parasites well used to exploiting those around them, paranoid as fuck and more than willing to use violence.

    No one would know what anarchism would be like, because it wouldn't be my anarchism, and it wouldn't be your anarchism, it would just be anarchism. I just think it would resemble a free market a lot more than anything else.
    Originally Posted by Blagsta
    There is a lack of affordable housing in London. Me and my partner are paying £1000/month for our flat.

    Move?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Very few people I know can afford to buy - me and my partner certainly can't, not unless we get keyworker status or we wait until our parents die. We both work in the public sector. Hardly anyone I know owns in London - and I know a lot of people. The shortage in social housing was caused by RTB and its consequences and the other things I just mentioned. Unless you can explain to me why there is far less social housing than there used to be?

    There may be less social housing, but there is more housing. There's also a lot more people wanting to live in London and its environs. That is what is causing the problem - not lack of social housing.

    look at the North - where there are many places where people don't want to live. There's been a decline in the amount of social housing there as well, but because demand for housing (generally) doesn't exceed supply - more people can afford to buy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    There may be less social housing, but there is more housing. There's also a lot more people wanting to live in London and its environs. That is what is causing the problem - not lack of social housing.

    So you're telling me that there is affordable housing in London? Errr...OK. Why so many people on the streets then? And thousands more in temporary accomodation?
    NQA wrote:
    look at the North - where there are many places where people don't want to live. There's been a decline in the amount of social housing there as well, but because demand for housing (generally) doesn't exceed supply - more people can afford to buy.

    Which just goes to illustrate how capitalist economics can't provide housing really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    So you're telling me that there is affordable housing in London? Errr...OK. Why so many people on the streets then? And thousands more in temporary accomodation?

    The lack of affordable houisng has nothing to do with RTB. Now there is an argument that more should have been put into creating new social housing, but thats an argument over using the reciepts from RTB, rather than against RTB as a whole.

    Now for the third time the crux of the problem (which has nothing to do with RTB) is that too many people want to live in London when there's too few houses.

    And Rough Sleeping has nothing to do with lack of housing, the majority of rough sleepers have other problems with drugs, alcohol, mental illness - not that they can't find a house.
    Which just goes to illustrate how capitalist economics can't provide housing really

    I think it illustrtates more that in a democracy people move around and that trying to get the right amount of housing in the right place is pretty complex. Unless Anarchism can predict the future as well as all the other marvellous things you claim for it I suspect that it would face similar problems
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    The lack of affordable houisng has nothing to do with RTB. Now there is an argument that more should have been put into creating new social housing, but thats an argument over using the reciepts from RTB, rather than against RTB as a whole.

    So the fact that social housing has been sold off and is no longer social housing has nothing to do with the current lack of social housing? Errrr...
    NQA wrote:
    Now for the third time the crux of the problem (which has nothing to do with RTB) is that too many people want to live in London when there's too few houses.

    Nope. If you have money, finding accomodation isn't a problem.
    NQA wrote:
    And Rough Sleeping has nothing to do with lack of housing, the majority of rough sleepers have other problems with drugs, alcohol, mental illness - not that they can't find a house.

    You know what the biggest problem I have with my clients (you seem to forget that its actually my job to work with people with these sort of problems)? Yep - affordable housing. There isn't any.
    NQA wrote:
    I think it illustrtates more that in a democracy people move around and that trying to get the right amount of housing in the right place is pretty complex. Unless Anarchism can predict the future as well as all the other marvellous things you claim for it I suspect that it would face similar problems

    No, it illustrates that something as fundamental as housing can't be left to the mercy of market forces which only care about making money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nope. If you have money, finding accomodation isn't a problem.

    Or if you are willing to live somewhere cheap.
    You know what the biggest problem I have with my clients (you seem to forget that its actually my job to work with people with these sort of problems)? Yep - affordable housing. There isn't any.

    Theres plenty. If people are too witless to move location fuck em.
    No, it illustrates that something as fundamental as housing can't be left to the mercy of market forces which only care about making money.

    Theres nothing wrong with market forces. Look to me like they help teach common sense and respnsibility, not traits that go down very well with some people but there you go.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes he is serious. Does anyone take him seriously is the question you should be asking...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :lol: are you serious??!!

    More or less. Of course by market forces I mean everyone being responsible for themsleves as much as possible, making mutual voluntary decisions about their lives and taking the consequences of them when they fuck up.

    You are talking about the feudalistic, socialist type shit that normally goes by that name.
    Yes he is serious. Does anyone take him seriously is the question you should be asking...

    Doesn't matter. As long as you all do what you are told you can hold whatever opinion you like. This is the real benefit of democracy to a criminal class like those pretending to represent "the people", it lets you get your whining off your chest before, during and after you do what your told.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You know what the biggest problem I have with my clients (you seem to forget that its actually my job to work with people with these sort of problems)?

    Well I hope you give them better advice than you demonstrate on here. And for the record I spent four years working on various aspects of social housing - including looking properly at what the issues were and how you can solve them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Well I hope you give them better advice than you demonstrate on here.

    And that means what exactly?
    NQA wrote:
    And for the record I spent four years working on various aspects of social housing - including looking properly at what the issues were and how you can solve them.

    Working for who? In what capacity? What conclusions did you come to? If you really think that RTB didn't diminish social housing stocks then I wonder what the hell you were doing. :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    And that means what exactly?

    You talk absolute bollocks here - and your entire opinions are based on a misguided political ideology with no attempt to engage with the real world.



    Working for who? In what capacity? What conclusions did you come to? If you really think that RTB didn't diminish social housing stocks then I wonder what the hell you were doing. :confused:

    What was then Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (though since I moved on from housing its become Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

    Though I can see why you're confused as I never stated that social housing stocks weren't diminished by RTB. However it made no difference to overall housing stock.

    Mr and Mrs Smith are allocated social housing. They don't exercise RTB, but have tenure for life - that house is still out of the housing market. They do exercise RTB and continue to live in the house - that house is still out of the housing market. However the difference is that when all the little Smiths leave home under RTB Mr and Mrs Smith are more likely to sell their house - knowing they can get a nice bungalow by the seaside with the proceeds, rather than continue to live their under social housing rather than go into the lottery of social housing again.

    Mr and Mrs Smith have also had a solid investment rather than just paying money into the council coffers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    You talk absolute bollocks here - and your entire opinions are based on a misguided political ideology with no attempt to engage with the real world.


    :D Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment, Mr Queen & Country.
    I guess you don't have an ideology, right? :rolleyes:


    NQA wrote:
    What was then Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (though since I moved on from housing its become Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

    That'll explain it then eh? You think that they're actually interested in providing housing for poor people? That they don't have a political ideology to push? Are you really that dense?
    NQA wrote:
    Though I can see why you're confused as I never stated that social housing stocks weren't diminished by RTB. However it made no difference to overall housing stock.

    I haven't claimed it has, brainiac. I'm talking about the lack of social housing and affordable housing.
    NQA wrote:
    Mr and Mrs Smith are allocated social housing. They don't exercise RTB, but have tenure for life - that house is still out of the housing market. They do exercise RTB and continue to live in the house - that house is still out of the housing market. However the difference is that when all the little Smiths leave home under RTB Mr and Mrs Smith are more likely to sell their house - knowing they can get a nice bungalow by the seaside with the proceeds, rather than continue to live their under social housing rather than go into the lottery of social housing again.

    Or they move and its back in the social housing stock. Or they die and its back in etc.
    NQA wrote:
    Mr and Mrs Smith have also had a solid investment rather than just paying money into the council coffers.

    Yes, I'm not arguing it hasn't been good for some people. What it has done is to contribute 20 years down the line to the lack of social housing. I don't know anyone who disputes that. Apart from you. Especially not anyone working in the social care field.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From the Shelter website
    Over time, Right to Buy sales have significantly reduced the supply of affordable housing in areas of high housing demand and in many rural communities.

    This has contributed to increasing numbers of homeless households in temporary accommodation, overcrowding and longer housing waiting lists.

    At the same time, the booming housing market has lead to a proliferation of private companies exploiting the Right to Buy discount. Companies have been offering council tenants cash incentives to exercise their Right to Buy, on the basis that they move out and lease the property to the company. The property is then sublet at a market rent, and when the period over which the discount has to be repaid on resale has elapsed, the company buys out the former tenant and sells the property on, making a massive capital gain as well as the profit on the rent.

    http://england.shelter.org.uk/policy/policy-962.cfm
Sign In or Register to comment.