Monday, 18 May 2015

Oops! Redwood lets slip flagship tory economic policy...

...over at his blog, the Rt Hon. John Redwood MP has been busy deflecting criticism on his post about UK productivity.

A few of his pesky readers have been pointing out that the UK runs a big trade deficit and questioning the sustainability of borrowing (public and privately) circa 10% of GDP to keep the party going.

When a fed up sounding JR snaps back to 'Ken Moore'

"[Running a trade deficit year on year] has proved to be sustainable as many people wish to invest in the UK or buy assets here. Germany sells rich people expensive cars they do not need, and the UK sells them expensive flats so they can have additional homes."

And that's it in a nutshell, the UK exports its land (and rents) so people like John Redwood can swan about in expensive motors.  This isn't just coincidence, it is actually an economic policy.

47 comments:

Robin Smith said...

And this is what the majority want to do. Are you saying they are wrong. And if so by what right do you judge people on right and wrong. And then, are you the world's only virtuous person?

Redwood is doing the bidding of the majority who elected him. And doing it very well indeed. If you object you must take it to the people who elected him.

Do you have the balls for this?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Hehe, good one. So we tax the exporters to subsidise the foreign landowners.

Bayard said...

Mark, of course; the landowners, despite being foreigners and therefore slightly suspect, are most likely the salt of the earth, but the exporters are definitely grubby businessmen who smell of the shop.

Lola said...

I went back to JR to read him and his commenters. It just reminded me why I stopped going there.

Rich Tee said...

I gave up on him when he wrote "I can't understand why people object to Buy-to-Let and expansion of the private rental sector".

He's not even a proper Thatcherite. Thatcher believed in home ownership.

Robin Smith said...

Why are you all complaining about Redwood. He was elected fairly and squarely by a large number of people.

If you don't like his proposals then short of being neurotic go ask those who elected him.

To say "yes but no but we have truth, everyone is wrong and must do as we say" is to be a cult or religion.

Are you not aware of this?

Rich Tee said...

@Robin Smith

You realise this is the internet, right? And why are you so keen to defend Redwood, are you related?

You also realise this is (supposed to be) a democracy, where people have free speech? (Your attitude to this speaks volumes, to be honest.)

As the blogger Guido Fawkes would say, you don't like it, have a refund and don't come back.

Robin Smith said...

@biscuit

The Internet is spelt with a capital "I"

What makes you think I'm defending Redwood?

If you read back slowly what I'm saying, I point out this democracy you are so proud of is what you seem to be complaining about, by your complaints at Redwood who's been elected 6 times in a row now.

So I'm asking why you are complaining about democracy which seems to working perfectly.

And this democratic perfection manifests as NOBODY WANTING LVT.

paulc156 said...

@RS. So what if he's won his piss easy to win seat 6 times in a row. He'd struggle to win one out of six in Tower Hamlets or Ilford South. In other words he's a lucky bastard. You clearly think democracy is just about general elections. The pesky bit between each election is the time to shut up and except the verdict of his constituents.

mombers said...

The only problem is there is you can make a virtually limitless number of luxury cars but Prime land is completely fixed. Unless you can convince the foreign vermillionaires to sell their houses to each other, knock them down and build them again very regularly, very little useful economic activity is created. Even if you do manage to get that going, knocking down and rebuilding a £20m house will cost a small fraction of the value of the land.

Dinero said...

Why net off land and cars. A trade deficit results in Sterling deposits in the custody of foreigners, via exchange markets does it not. Does any one on here have an idea how the cash flows and resulting accounts for foreign trade work in the actual case.

Robin Smith said...

Paulc, well in case you are not yet aware, the party or individual who wins is not relevant. The demands of the people who elect every single government certainly are. And no government was elected by a minority. And every one was elected by a collective who does not want LVT. Redwood is just one of 600 who us doing the will of the people very well.

Tuned in yet? You seem to be gate keeping for this neurotic collective here.

paulc156 said...

RS. LVT was not on the menu at the election from any party likely to either win or be able to form a coalition. Hence to claim the "collective does not want LVT" is without merit.
"The demands of the people who elect every single government" The people are not monolithic. They don't speak with one voice, on anything.

mombers said...

@rs The Tories got 36.9% of votes cast, which is a plurality, not a majority. Counting those who did not vote, only 24.4% of eligible voters cast their ballots for them...

Random said...

Indeed, this is why I would ban imports of luxury goods, but everyone here thinks that would be impossible and insane.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Firstly it is not industrious Germans buying London homes, it is lazy kleptocrats from the developing world.

Secondly banning luxury imports is a terrible idea

Thirdly when we import, foreigners will hold GBP. If we tax land not production then foreigners will spend GBP on goods and services provided by the many and not on London land provided by the few

Win win

Random said...

"foreigners will spend GBP on goods and services provided by the many and not on London land provided by the few "
Maybe but foreigners might save in bonds. London land is not "provided" by anyone IMHO it just exists.

Random said...

http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2014/02/its-exporters-stupid.html?m=1
No nation has a right to import more than it exports. Floating exchange rates eliminate imbalances if that happens (currency depreciation happens.) (PS: in case of oil, etc may not do this but tends towards this with free markets.) But also more importantly no nation also has a right to export more than imports. Otherwise the world runs out of that particular currency. Foreign workers have to pay in their local currency even if the firm has £s. And the exchange rate rises which eliminates the exports.
So what happens is £s are held hostage. CADs are caused by foreigners wanting to save in the currency. And this is usually the central bank of the foreign country.
My view is that any nation without LVT and 'liberalised' foreign 'investment' has a security risk because this could happen:
1. Foreign (say China) central bank decides to have an export-led/mercantile strategy.
2. Chinese central bank prints some yuan and swaps for £ to buy UK land.This happens first (emphasis.)
(And probably bonds and a bunch of other stuff too, and can happen through 'sovereign wealth funds' and other unofficial ways despite rules on foreign investment.) No nation without 100% LVT can stop this completely, country ran by homeownerists can be easily extorted.
3. Yuan exchange rate drops via £. Rising house prices combined with strong £ lead to spending on imports from chinese exporters.
4. This indirectly allow foreign (in this case Chinese) govt to extract rents from their workers without them realising it (along with non-homeowners, etc in host country.) They can ally with banks and local homeownerists.

Mark Wadsworth said...

R, yes, that's a roundabout way of putting it, but it all leads to the same conclusion.

Robin Smith said...

Paul C (what does the C stand for?)

You reinforce my point perfectly, once again, and once again you dont realise you are reinforcing it. That is the problem with a quasi-religion

LVT IS NOT ANYWHERE BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS IT

Especially those most well educated on it. Go ask Fred Harrison. Many times he's campaigned to national leaders on it and they always say "Thanks Fred. You've just told us what NOT to do and exactly WHY we wont be doing it."

The problem for Fred is he justifies his whole life by LVT. So to accept this repeated observed fact means everything he justifies himself by will be gone and reality must be faced. Scarey.

Same with all LVT fans. Same with ISIS.. Same with any religion.

Robin Smith said...

Mombers, you are fun to do sport with.

You are well aware the majority of seats wins an election here. So why even mention things that are not relevant?

Have you noticed how when you propose LVT to people, they do exactly this to you? It's called begging the question in terms of depth psychology. You may not be aware you are doing it. But its right there in black and white in your own hand on the public record.

And if LVT where the policy of the winning party, would you still complain like our little ones who cannot have their sweets?

I'm seriously worried about you guys.

Robin Smith said...

Mombers, you are fun to do sport with.

You are well aware the majority of seats wins an election here. So why even mention things that are not relevant?

Have you noticed how when you propose LVT to people, they do exactly this to you? It's called begging the question in terms of depth psychology. You may not be aware you are doing it. But its right there in black and white in your own hand on the public record.

And if LVT where the policy of the winning party, would you still complain like our little ones who cannot have their sweets?

I'm seriously worried about you guys.

Robin Smith said...

Random:

"No nation has a right to import more than it exports"

Are you certain. If my army is bigger than yours I can force you by my own right to give it to me.

Are you feeling OK?

Random said...

Maybe, but this requires colonialism and fixed exchanged rate to force net exports. But no nation has a *right*

Random said...

RS, this is the point of YPP. And you'd be surprised how many people support rent controls. Owner occupier rate at a third for young people down from two thirds. We will pick up support.

Random said...

"LVT IS NOT ANYWHERE BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS "
Not true several countries have LVT. Up until 1980s UK had Georgist policy.
Plus, LVT is not the only thing in the YPP manifesto.

Robin Smith said...

Have the atheist believers heard this. See if you can get through it without setting up any straw men, begging any questions or asking for infinite evidence.

https://youtu.be/fUpEGVV6_VI

Its designed to light the imagination in minds captured by an idea, so no longer free.

paulc156 said...

"LVT IS NOT ANYWHERE BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS IT"

Capitals too... you sound a little desperate. Are you engaging in some sort of anti LVT campaign? I read your psychological profile on FH [though I don't know him]. Thanks anyway. If LVT is really such a bad idea why keep banging your head against the wall on here? Seems a bit weird, in a compulsive obsessive sort of way.

Random said...

RS, calm dude. If Fred wants to do stuff like LVT campaigning up to him.
BTW, in the Bible it says "land is the property of all of mankind" or suchlike.

Robin Smith said...

This is a good exposition of planet saving like LVT fans do. Nutz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote

"Don Quixote, in the first part of the book, does not see the world for what it is, and prefers to imagine that he is living out a knightly story."

Random said...

RS, could you show some evidence against LVT please?
And many anti-LVT treat house prices as a religion.
"Same with all LVT fans. Same with ISIS.. Same with any religion."
ISIS have murdered people. LVT is a type of tax reform designed to allow equitable distribution of land value and remove coercion.
In any case, every landlords and banker SUPPORTS LVT, they just propose it is collected privately.

Robin Smith said...

Random, no more straw men please. No one is stopping Fred. I'm saying he is neurotic and needs help because I love him. His friends like him to stay neurotic to keep the fantasy going. He needs real friends.

Random said...

"planet saving"
Yes, wanting lower house prices and a roof over my head make me a martyr... WTF?

Robin Smith said...

Random, I do not understand your question. There is no evidence against LVT. Its perfect in theory. There is no other more perfect economic policy in theory. The rather large problem is that in reality its the most failing policy in all of history. Repeatedly. LVT fans deny this religiously. I'm saying the sane would already be asking why it keeps failing rather than keep trying to repeat something that does not work in the real world.

You are still blaming landlords and bankers too. But every single person born joins the game to play. Some win, some lose. Its no using blaming the winners if you freely walked onto the field but are not a good player.

Now if the losers were to walk off the field and say "is it time we started observing reality before we attempt to force our doctrine onto people who do not want it", then they would have at least a smidgen of credit.

Are we on the same channel yet?

Robin Smith said...

Paul C. Now you are doing what is known as ad hominem in terms of depth psychology - trying to discredit the person - to the body - rather than whats being said. You have been rumbled.

This is also a claissic defence mechanism used by your opponents too. But you are not aware of it when you do it. Its a psychological form of rent seeking or monopoly. It shows that even LVT fans are rent seekers at heart. This is why when it comes to real commitment the LVT fan all of a sudden asks for unearned incomes for all such as Citizens Welfare.

The LVT fan is not authentic. And is repeating the same thing he campaigns against. But is unaware of it due to deep capture by the doctrine.

Henry George was neither a Georgist nor an LVT fan. But neither worshippers realise this.

Steven_L said...

Thanks for the comments everyone, 35 must be a record for one of my posrs :)

Robin, while you're here, something I've been meaning to ask you:

Is all this 'melt fund' and the like you tout on the web real or just a blog or what? I mean it, when I met you (albeit very briefly) you seemed pretty normal, but I really struggle to understand what you're getting at with pretty much everything you post online. It all seems a bit mad basically.

Kj said...

I think RS' comments are intended, or so he believes, to help people achieve some sort of opiphany. It's all very haiku, but after this, basically you are to give up campaigning for LVT per se, and focus on changing people's minds individually and/or exposing rent-seeking inherent in human nature etc.. Or he's just being an arse, I don't know.
What I'm doing now is projecting something or the other, and it's all due to my belief system, which apparently is LVT.

paulc156 said...

RS it's hardly ad hominem to suggest a touch of OCD in your apparent zeal for frequenting a pro LVT site in order to repeatedly belittle and berate it's bloggers for being persuaded by the merits of LVT, is it now?
I might add that if you want to gain any traction [rather than just mild amusement, derision or just being ignored] you might be better advised to stick to a coherent argument, drop the cryptic references [depth psychology and oblique asides about Fred] and come back to planet earth. Or are you really the messiah and are we your too stupid to understand disciples... ;)

Robin Smith said...

You were complaining about Redwood being wrong

I suggested you were slightly mad because the majority keep electing him - scientific fact

And you should start to look scientifically at why people do not want LVT rather than blame the ones they elect

But you have proven scientifically, that question is forbidden to you because it is your God

Your God does not allow scrutiny.

The response was to be rude to me.

I dont mind the rudeness. I like it a lot.

Because its tell tale sign I've hit the scientific spot.

You guys HAVE RELIGION. That is, you are not doing science.

Thats OK but you dont realise it.

Just like all other religion.

Psychology is a fascinating science,

You now have a choice:

1) either look in the mirror and rediscover who you really are as an individual.
2) bury this scientific observation and descend deeper into the abyss of religion

Which?

Kj said...

Where do we go from here Baba? I feel so alone without my religion, everything I knew isn't no more. It totally affects everything, like my whole relationship With my family, friends, work, exercise and fun was based around LVT, and now I can't bang on about it anymore. What to do?

Mark Wadsworth said...

KJ cheer up - you are the only Georgist in the whole of your country so you will not lose many friends if you give it up !

Kj said...

Fair point MW, thanks that cheered me up. I'll miss the LVT-cakes I bake for myself though.

Kj said...

The Georgist orgies also never panned out, those are all over in the leftie scene.

Robin Smith said...

Folks, its not complex. And does go very deep.

Hitler and Mussolini were only the primary spokesmen for the attitude of domination and craving for power that are in the heart of almost everyone. Until the source is cleared, there will always be confusion and hate, wars and class antagonisms.

Jiddu Krishnamurti


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jiddukrish152086.html#dT44Ph277P3AtfPx.99

Mark Wadsworth said...

Godwin's Law! Congratulations robin you got there at last and totally unaided!

Random said...

"There is no evidence against LVT. Its perfect in theory. "
But in practise, there may be evidence against it, no? I was saying in practise the evidence tends to support Georgist policies e.g. declines in vacant buildings after implementation of LVT in Atloona, Pennsylvania.

Bayard said...

"I gave up on him when he wrote "I can't understand why people object to Buy-to-Let and expansion of the private rental sector"."

Is he really that dim? I can see him not understanding people having a moral objection to BTL, but can he really not see that tenants resent missing out on the unearned capital gains they would be making if they were homeowners, or did you misquote him?