A snippet from Lord Beveridge's "Full Employment in a Free Society":

The proposition that there should always be more vacant jobs than unemployed men means that the labour market should always be a seller’s market rather than a buyer’s market. For this, on the view of society underlying this Report — that society exists for the individual — there is a decisive reason of principle. The reason is that difficulty in selling labour has consequences of a different order of harmfulness from those associated with difficulty in buying labour. A person who has difficulty in buying the labour he wants suffers inconvenience or reduction in profits. A person who cannot sell his labour is, in effect, told that he is of no use. The first difficulty causes annoyance or loss. The other is a personal catastrophe. This difference remains even if an adequate income is provided by insurance or otherwise, during unemployment; the idleness even on an income corrupts; the feeling of not being wanted demoralizes. The difference remains even if most people are unemployed only for relatively short periods. As long as there is any long-term unemployment not obviously due to personal deficiency, anybody who loses his job fears that he may be one of the unlucky ones who will not get another job quickly. The short-term unemployed do not know that they are short-term unemployed till their unemployment is over.

Dunno. Rent here is just as exorbitant as house prices. And yeah, the deposit is usually the major block for new buyers - if you can afford to rent where you want to buy chances are you can afford the mortgage repayments. If you don't have the bank of mum and dad backing you, goooooood fucking luck.

Yeah, this is way to short to cover the topic.

Freedom / choice is worth considering but people need to treat home buying as an investment because it is often the biggest single investment they ever make. Buy low and sell high. Putting that out of your mind because you're planning to never sell is a huge mistake. You would think that other countries would have learnt the lessons of the US, but housing markets in places like Canada, Australia, big Chinese cities are just waiting to pop. The mantra of 'house prices always rise' continues.

The most obvious measure broadly is price to median incomes. Here in Sydney (and some of the other Australian capitals) it's at eye watering levels. Buying a house here right now is basically banking on preferential tax treatment (in our case, called negative gearing), restricted supply continuing forever (the main driver of house prices by the way), and heroic increases in income to forestall the inevitability of prices simply becoming unaffordable.

It's gotten to the point here where lenders are asking home buyers (who want a loan to value ratio of over 80%!) to pay so-called lender's mortgage insurance (LMI) which adds a substantial amount to their loan and guarantees the bank (not the home buyer) if the borrower defaults. The insurance company who issued the insurance contract then goes after the defaulted home buyer to recoup the payout to the bank:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/09/7-30-report-lenders-mortgage-insurance/

From what I understand there is still plenty of reasonably priced property in the US (in some cities) but even there you have plenty of places that have become ridiculously overpriced.

*ban
Noti Buyer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pugDjDaqj5g

Look out for that Oscar-worthy performance of Jeff Goldblum as sickly nutrion-enthusiast! Just like Leto in Dallas Buyer's Club, you could smell the AIDS by simply looking at him. Award season's close, man! Fingers crossed!

Oh crap!!! I had no idea about Ireland. What idiots. Afraid of possible bombings, they have now ensured more bombings.


EDIT: It seems they didn't even know what they were voting on. Google searches from the UK for "what happens if we leave the EU" and "what is the EU" have tripled in the last hours as their economy goes into freefall. Many "leave" voters have buyers remorse already, as clearly they didn't consider the implications of 'leaving'. Just wow. No surprise Trump is congratulating them on destroying their (and the worlds) economy over silliness, hate, and fear.

For all those blocked, just search these titles on Daily Motion and you should find some one who's uploaded them.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4eoyvj_last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver-debt-buyers-hbo_tv

@greatgooglymoogly

Thanks for taking the time to watch it.

Like I said in my previous comment, this talk needs to take a lot of shortcuts, otherwise its length would surpass anyone's attention span.

So, point by point.

By "balanced budget", I suppose you refer to the federal budget. A balanced budget is not neccessarily a bad thing, but it is undesirable in most case. The key reason is sectoral balances. The economy can divided into three sectors: public, private, foreign. Since one person's spending is another person's income, the sum of all spending and income of these three sectors is zero by definition.

More precisely: if the public sector runs a surplus and the private sector runs a surplus, the foreign sector needs to run a deficit of a corresponding size.

Two examples:
- the government runs a balanced budget, no surplus, no deficit
- the private sector runs a surplus (savings) of 2% of GDP
- the foreign sector must, by definition, run a deficit of 2% of GDP (your country runs a current account surplus of 2% of GDP)

- the government runs a deficit of 2% of GDP
- the foreign sector runs a surplus of 3% (your current account deficit of 3%)
- your private sector must, by definition, run a deficit of 1% of GDP, aka burn through savings or run up debt

If you intend to allow the private sector to net save, you need to run either a current account surplus or a public sector deficit, or both. Since we don't export goods to Mars just yet, not all countries can run current account surpluses, so you need to run a public sector deficit if you want your private sector to net save. No two ways about it.

Germany runs a balanced public budget, sort of, and its private sector net saves. But that comes at the cost of a current account surplus to the tune of €250B. That's 250 billion Euros worth of debt other countries have to accumulate so that both the private and public sector in Germany can avoid deficits. Parasitic is what I'd call this behaviour, and I'm German.

If you feel ambitious, you could try to have both surplus and deficit within the private sector by allowing households to net save while "forcing" corporations to run the corresponding deficits. But to any politician trying that, I'd advise to avoid air travel.

As for the "devaluation of the currency", see my previous comment.

Also, she didn't use real numbers, because a) the talk is short and numbers kill people's attention rather quickly, and b) it's a policy decision to use debt to finance a deficit. One might just as well monetise it, like I explained in my previous comment.

Helicopter money would be quite helpful these days, actually. Even monetarists like AEP say so. If fiscal policy is off the table (deficit hawkery), what else are you left with...

As for your question related to the Fed, let me quote Eric Tymoigne on why MMT views both central bank and Treasury as part of the consolidated government:

"MMT authors tend to like to work with a consolidated government because they see it as an effective strategy for policy purpose (see next section), but also because the unconsolidated case just hides under layers of institutional complexity the main point: one way or another the Fed finances the Treasury, always. This monetary financing is not an option and is not by itself inflationary."

MMT principle: the central bank needs to be under democratic control, aka be part of government. The Fed in particular can pride itself on its independance all it wants, it still cannot fulfill any of its goals without the Treasury's help. It cannot diverge from government policies too long. Unlike the ECB, which is a nightmare in its construction.

Anyway, what does he mean by "one way or another the Fed finances the Treasury, always"? Well, the simple case is debt monetisation, direct financing. However, the Fed also participates by ensuring that Primary Dealers have enough reserves to make a reasonable bid on treasuries. The Fed makes sure that auctions of treasuries will always succeed. Always. Either by providing reserves to ensure buyers can afford the treasuries, by replacing maturing treasuries or buying them outright. No chance whatsoever for bond vigilantes. Betting against treasuries is pointless, you will always lose.

But what about taxation as a means to finance the Treasury? Well, the video's Monopoly example illustrated quite nicely, you cannot collect taxes until you have spent currency into circulation. Spending comes before taxation, it does not depend on it. Until reserves are injected into the banking system, either by the Fed through asset purchases or the Treasury through spending, taxes cannot be paid. Again, monetary financing is not optional. If the Treasury borrows money from the public, it borrows back money it previously spent.

Yes, I ignored the distribution of wealth, taxation, the fixation on growth and a million other things. That's a different discussion.

As I understand it, the studios submit to which category they want to be nominated in. Think Drama will be a too tough, got a few moments of light humor, Comedy. So blame the studio for going for the Comedy nomination... and then blame the Foreign Press for going, "yeah, sure, we can accept it as a comedy".

Back when I worked at Borders. The buyers or whomever was in charge of such things at the home office, put City of Angels in the Comedy section of videos. I think their explanation was that it was Comedy/Fantasy and something, but shouldn't Fantasy be in the Sci-Fi section? Indeed, most normal Fantasy movies were in the Sci-Fi section. So I'm still at a loss to figure out how City of Angels was considered a Comedy by Borders.

I bought this 45 rpm in 1980, back when they still sold 45's. First 45 I ever bought was "In the Year 2525" in 1969, last one I bought was the Stones "Undercover of the Night" in 1984. Since you asked.

This was Bowie's last great album. They went rapidly downhill after this one. I saw him on the Serious Moonlight tour, it was a great show but then I read this lame BS where he said he was "surprised" by the commercial success of "Let's Dance" and when he looked out into the vast stadiums of ticket buyers he wondered how many of them had actually heard a Velvet Underground song. Ya can't have it both ways, putting out a dance record for the MTV crowd and then wishing you were at a backstreet club.

Radio Shack was a thieving steaming shit pile of a corporation that had their buyers work around US companies in order to rip off products in order to save a few cents. They were unethical. There is a reason that only a few toy companies would actually sell to them.

Real Time with Bill Maher: 2016 Billionaire Buyers Guide has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

On costs, it's super simple too. In countries who have a single payer system, the government is a monopsony or (near) single buyer with huge market power to bring down price of drugs and treatment. This is primarily why the US health care industry is so deathly afraid of a single payer system and demonized it. The final AHA, to appease the industry, had provisions specifically stating the government would not attempt to push down prices.

Insurance companies and union groups in the US are nowhere near as powerful because of their relative size and can't dictate price. At an individual consumer level there is also no competition because for those with work provided cover, the cost is hidden as an income deduction. Whereas those without cover get hosed with chargemaster prices and as an individual have no ability to contest high prices anyhow.

I used to be a pretty strong "doubter", if not a denier. I made a gradual shift away from that, but one strong instance of shift was when Neil Degrasse Tyson presented it as a (relatively) simple physics problem in his new Cosmos series. Before we started burning fossil fuels, x% of the sun's energy was reflected back into space. Now, with a higher concentration of CO2, x is a smaller number. That energy has to go somewhere, and at least some of that is going to be heat energy.

Still, I don't think that anything on the level of "average individual citizen/household of an industrial country" is really where anything needs to happen. Yes, collectively, normal people in their daily lives contribute to Climate Change. But the vast majority of us, even as a collective single unit, contribute less than industrial / government / infrastructure sources.

Fossil fuels have been a great source of energy that has massively contributed to global advances in the past century. BUT, although we didn't know it in the beginning, they have this associated cost/downside. Fossil fuels also have a weakness in that they are not by any means inexhaustible, and costs rise as that becomes more and more obvious. In turn, that tends to favor the status quo in terms of the hierarchy of industrial nations versus developing or 3rd world countries -- we've already got the money and infrastructure in place to use fossil fuels, developing countries can't afford the costs.

All of this makes me think that 2 things need to happen:
A) Governments need to encourage the development of energy sources etc. that move us away from using fossil fuels. Tax breaks to Tesla Motors, tax incentives to buyers of solar cells for their homes, etc. etc.
B) If scientists/pundits/whoever really want people to stop using fossil fuels (or just cut down), they need to develop realistic alternatives. I'll bring up Tesla Motors again for deserving huge kudos in this area. Americans (and in general citizens of developed countries) have certain expectations about how a car should perform. Electric cars have traditionally been greatly inferior to a car burning fossil fuels in terms of living up to those expectations, but Tesla threw all that out the window and made a car that car people actually like to drive. It isn't just "vaguely functional if you really want to brag about how green you are", it is actually competitive with or superior to a gas-engine car for most users/consumers (some caveats for people who need to drive long distances in a single day).

We need to get more companies / inventors / whoever developing superior, functional alternatives to fossil fuel technologies. We need governments to encourage and enable those developments, NOT to cave to lobbyist pressure from big oil etc. and do the opposite. Prices will start high (like Tesla), but if you really are making a superior product, economy of scale will eventually kick in and normalize that out.

Outside of the consumer level, the same thing goes for actual power production. Even if we did nothing (which I would certainly not advocate), eventually scarcity and increased difficulty in obtaining fossil fuels (kinda sad that the past 2 decades of pointless wars 95% driven by oil haven't taught us this lesson yet, but there it is) will make the more "green" alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) more economically practical. That tipping point will be when we see the real change begin.

All well and good, but the reason why all the oversight costs piles up is because this plane isn't a solution to a military problem, it's a solution to an economical problem.

It's government stimulus, pure and simple. Get a whole bunch of different contractors from different companies and hand them money to build parts for a warplane that covers roles that are already covered. Keep those guys ticking over to prevent a collapse of the arms industry (or to prevent them developing products for sale to buyers the US might not consider kosher).

And then, because you're dealing with different companies, you need to coordinate, ensure compatibility, oversea each company to make sure they are on time/program/budget etc etc.

You build a plane under one roof, the entire process is overseen by the company and the government get's to check up on them. Far simpler. One department doesn't deliver inside that company, their management has to fix the problem or default on the contract. One company holds up the whole plane, do the other companies get penalised? Of course not, their staff sit around drawing wages with their thumbs up their asses waiting. And the government keeps paying.

Additionally, the planes the F35 is supposed to replace are all better at their jobs because they are specialised. You put every topping ever conceived on that government pizza and no one will like it (apart from perhaps the homeless who would eat anything to stave off starvation). Build a new warthog, improve on the materials, give it better armaments etc and put the tried and true design back to work. That's the core of the super hornet program, right?

When you look at the state of the world, the only real threats currently to America are the bloody terrorists (which, as you note, isn't exactly an existential threat), and the flexing of military might in 2nd world countries not withstanding, there is very little need for a frankenplane that doesn't do anything particularly good.

China and Russia? Lol, the US has 75% more combat aircraft and 400% more combat helicopters. Factor in China's pretty sparse air assets, in an air war, including force multipliers such as electronic warfare/early warning/air co-ordination and carriers, the US would be able to show down both nations handily with it's existing fleet.

I really do appreciate the point you're making, but that just adds insult to injury. The awful waste built in to the program is even more appalling when you consider that the F35 is a plane no one really needs, or even wants.