Answers on a postcard, please.
At the back, there is a super article on why cities are good for us, leading up to the following blinding insight:
"The high prices drive people away from New York, an environmental and cultural disaster. London's green belt has a similar effect, pushing economic activity away from London, where it is less resilient and less successful, and stretching commutes over longer distances."
Contrast this with this article, moderately interesting, but then they slip in the following fallacy:
"...there are concerns that the recent introduction of business rates on empty properties will act as a brake on regeneration"
Like f*** it will.
Think about it, if you have an empty property, what's more likely to make you get off your arse and do it up and find tenants for it (or sell it to somebody else who will) - if you have to pay tax on it, or if you don't have to pay tax on it?
Elevate their cause?
1 hour ago
6 comments:
I think the problem is that the FT understands politics better than it understand economics!
Their reporting on UK politics is reasonably even handed, but they've got a bit of a blind spot with the EU, they seem quite enthralled by that idea.
MW
The FT's reporting is reasonably balanced (more balanced than the BBC for instance) but, politically, it is the Guardian on pink paper.
Umbongo, thanks for dropping in, I think that criticism is a tad harsh.
As long as you ignore anything by Wolfgang Münchau and his ilk, the FT is quite an informative read (no adjectives - always the sign of quality).
The G is just vomit-inducing misinformation and propoganda.
MW
That's what I meant to convey ie that the non agit-prop pages of the FT are reasonably balanced and there's a more or less reasonable balance of opinion in the FT commentariat : however, the editorial line of the FT is down there with the Guardian (cf yesterday's bashing of Redwood's report for its mild euroscepticism)
Umbongo, I can completely agree with that. I hardly bother with the editorials. Nice blog, BTW.
Post a Comment