So Nick Clegg is talking rubbish again.

So it's greed to want to keep your money, but not greed to want take it away?

no it's a balance, with choices which have to be made for good and bad.

we take a lot of things for granted, these things have to be paid for, we either go with out or find some way to pay.

as regards tax as such, the real issue is globalisation of tax.
This will erode most of the tax take as companies and individuals endeavor to reduce tax liabilities.

with out a significant and possibly unpalatable change to off shore tax laws, we may never again be able to afford most of the things we have become used to.
 
All this is, is Clegg playing to his supporters, nothing more. Wake me up when he has some concrete proposals other than "The rich should pay more!".
 
kwerk are you confusing the demand with money?

Nope, demand is finite and fiat money is not. You can print money and the illusion of creating demand, but you are in fact pulling finite demand from the future to the present. It's not really a problem if you have continual sources of "growth": world wars, a baby boom, government spending, globalism, financial boom, tech boom, immigration, housing boom, education boom.
 
I'm not sure that is always the case, an entrepreneur can create a product (and a business to supply it) that drives demand.

There wasn't much demand for iPhones, or smartphones at all, until Apple created it. Clegg would create an environment where a British Steve Jobs would be best served by moving elsewhere.

Being rich isn't a crime Mr Clegg. Lets not punish people for it.

Apple are the exception that proves the rule (and I don't believe the iPhone was the first 'smartphone' as you imply but I digress).

I tend to not think of Apple as a business, but rather a cult. But even so you could still argue the iPhone didn't create new demand, but rather took existing demand elsewhere. There was already a demand for mobile phones, by the time it came out nearly all the adult population had a mobile and they would have bought a different model had the iPhone not been launched.
 
I was going to say nothing about growth. I was going to say that either you have a completely different definition of 'demand' to everyone else or you fail to grasp what it means. Demand isn't something that can be 'stolen', it's a principle that always exists and can only really be manipulated through marketing.

If anything, there's no such thing as surplus wealth - just wealth an employer withholds ("steals", if you like) from an employee.

ok more gross simplifications:

I spent my time growing 1000 apples in my garden, I ate 10 and sold the rest. Let's say I sold them for £500. My labour surplus created me £500 of wealth.

I am now willing and able to spend £500 on whatever I want. That's £500 of DEMAND.

I think i will buy a laptop from OCUK.

But wait... the government wants it's cut so it can pay people to watch Jeremy Kyle (keeps 'em out of trouble). That's 40% please. If I don't pay men come and forcefully take it.

Sounds like £200 of demand just got stolen from me. I can't afford a laptop now. But Jeremy Kyle's advertiser deserves that demand more than OCUK, that's what the government says. And they run their economy using "fairness" as the main metric. What could possibly go wrong with that?
 
And next year I watch Jeremy Kyle instead of grow apples. I create zero real demand, and the government has to fudge it in to existence through borrowing (on the promise of my grand kids paying it back later with something tangible, like apples). They have essentially stolen my grand kids demand, EXTRA to what they would already have stolen in the future.

And if they default on it, well they have stolen the demand of the poor bugger who bought that debt using their surplus.

then when the borrowing runs out they can print, which creates inflation which is basically a stealth tax.

There's no way around this, how can't you understand?
 
Last edited:
IIRC private healthcare only treats certain problems. you cant get everything treated privately so they will be using the NHS somewhere. i might be wrong here though.

you will most likely find the top 10% arent paying their full 40% either as they will be using one of the many loopholes to reduce it. or like cameron will be rich because their parents didnt pay their full taxes.

you cant get emergency care privately, so if your in a car crash your going to an NHS hospital a&e, same with major operations and intensive care.

so the notion that the rich shouldnt pay as much tax as they have private health and education doesnt work in practice, as at some point they have to use state provided care and education
 
And next year I watch Jeremy Kyle instead of grow apples. I create zero real demand, and the government has to fudge it in to existence through borrowing (on the promise of my grand kids paying it back later with something tangible, like apples). They have essentially stolen my grand kids demand, EXTRA to what they would already have stolen in the future.

And if they default on it, well they have stolen the demand of the poor bugger who bought that debt using their surplus.

then when the borrowing runs out they can print, which creates inflation which is basically a stealth tax.

There's no way around this, how can't you understand?

Except when watching jeremy kyle you create extra demand for jeremy kyle thus boosting the ratings for the show, which then leads to the show being able to pay its producers and staff and also creates demand for the advertising slots inbetween the show as the ratings and people viewing the show are higher.

Growing apples dosent create demand it creates SUPPLY almost the opposite of demand as with excess supply prices fall and with excess demand prices rise due to the excess of want for a limited product inflation isn't a stealth tax because it affects everything the money isnt going to the government because of inflation the cost of providing state services also rises in equivalant factor thats what inflation is its an average measure of the rise or fall in price of the goods and services of a current economy.

Kwerk your economics is so poor it is not even worth considering any kind of debate.
 
Last edited:
We have a lot of surplus capacity at the moment, prices won't fall though, factories will be shut.
Supply can only keep going for a short time without demand.

Supply and demand can reduce costs, but the inertia is way too much to save business on the way down.
 
Last edited:
Watching JK doesn't create sustainable demand, the advertisers will soon realise that the people watching cannot afford to buy anything and walk away.
In fact this will have had a negative impact on the advertisers finances.
 
Nail on head. That is the logical fallacy.

We live in a world where people tell us wanting to keep the money we earned is greedy, but the government wanting more of it is not.

Not really though is it.

Wanting as much money as possible to help society as a whole (governments asking for tax) isn't really the same as one person wanted to keep as much money for themselves as possible is it?

That's like saying someone who spent £20 on a BJ from a prozzie and someone who gave £20 to Oxfam are morally the same.
 
Watching JK doesn't create sustainable demand, the advertisers will soon realise that the people watching cannot afford to buy anything and walk away.
In fact this will have had a negative impact on the advertisers finances.

Except to watch jeremy kyle you would have to own a TV set and pay for electricity to run it, a home to stay in while you watch it etc.. You could go further as by watching jeremy kyle somewhere at some point has generated demand for someone to manufacture a TV set, someone to generate extra electricity, so one person's idle passtime is likely created by many different net contributing jobs.

So the assumption that everyone watching jeremy kyle has absolutely no posession or value is unlikely. Perhaps you could argue that the state has handed all the above items needed to watch it, but then they are still contributing by using the money of the state to purchase the items to maintain the economy turning.
 
Apple are the exception that proves the rule (and I don't believe the iPhone was the first 'smartphone' as you imply but I digress).

I tend to not think of Apple as a business, but rather a cult. But even so you could still argue the iPhone didn't create new demand, but rather took existing demand elsewhere. There was already a demand for mobile phones, by the time it came out nearly all the adult population had a mobile and they would have bought a different model had the iPhone not been launched.

Don't remember a demand for cyclone based bag-less vacuum cleaners either, until someone created it. You can hardly buy the old fashioned sort now. Dyson would seem to be an entrepreneur to me too, and he created a market, and the demand in it.
 
Except to watch jeremy kyle you would have to own a TV set and pay for electricity to run it, a home to stay in while you watch it etc.. You could go further as by watching jeremy kyle somewhere at some point has generated demand for someone to manufacture a TV set, someone to generate extra electricity, so one person's idle passtime is likely created by many different net contributing jobs.

So the assumption that everyone watching jeremy kyle has absolutely no posession or value is unlikely. Perhaps you could argue that the state has handed all the above items needed to watch it, but then they are still contributing by using the money of the state to purchase the items to maintain the economy turning.

Well yes and no, the state will have borrowed the money and the goods will be imported.
So borrowed money chucked out the window at best.
 
Not really though is it.

Wanting as much money as possible to help society as a whole (governments asking for tax) isn't really the same as one person wanted to keep as much money for themselves as possible is it?

That's like saying someone who spent £20 on a BJ from a prozzie and someone who gave £20 to Oxfam are morally the same.

Its their money. The government does NOT have a right to it. Even if it does use it for the betterment of society (which is often debatable) and people with money never do the same (which is even more so)
 
Don't remember a demand for cyclone based bag-less vacuum cleaners either, until someone created it. You can hardly buy the old fashioned sort now. Dyson would seem to be an entrepreneur to me too, and he created a market, and the demand in it.

But he didnt create the demand for vacuum cleaners, he just offered a better product in a market that already existed. The iPhone is the same*.

*I understand this is a personal preference, I myself wouldn't use the overpriced, underfeatured effort. But it sells well.
 
Back
Top Bottom