tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post5353820194453677189..comments2024-03-05T10:52:24.691+00:00Comments on Mark Wadsworth: I read it as far as the first glaring error. And then as far as the next one.Mark Wadsworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-40326656847911902972013-12-12T07:55:01.434+00:002013-12-12T07:55:01.434+00:00"We have ended up with none of the benefits o..."We have ended up with none of the benefits of capitalism or socialism."<br /><br />Which is the problem with politicians trying to impose any sort of political "system" on a country. It doesn't work for long, because it is controlled by politicians and you end up with the worst of both worlds, as we have. "Capitalism", for all its faults, has the great advantage of being what you get in the absence of a politically-imposed system and therefore is much less subject to the failings of politics.Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-10485061824754414312013-12-10T18:22:29.142+00:002013-12-10T18:22:29.142+00:00Din, in the normal word, the return on capital = c...Din, in the normal word, the return on capital = cost of capital, by definition. Mess with that equation at your peril - as you say, depressing interest rates leads to mal-investment (mainly in inflated land and share prices, but it could be anything, really). <br /><br />In his strange world, that last sentence does make sense - because he is referring to shares (which are not capital) as capital. But well spotted. Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-3092064645762708902013-12-10T17:11:17.737+00:002013-12-10T17:11:17.737+00:00I thought the purpose of the current low interests...I thought the purpose of the current low interests rates was to reduce the cost of capital and therefore in turn the result would be to reduce the return to capital.<br /><br /><br />He presents what seems to be a contradiction within the space of one single sentence<br /><br /> which is quite an acheivment<br /><br /> - ..."the rising share going to capital, coupled with falling yields..."<br /><br />Dinerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14632385731642361211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-26771113208288817272013-12-10T13:38:47.191+00:002013-12-10T13:38:47.191+00:00L, that bit was meaningless so I ignored it.
DBC,...L, that bit was meaningless so I ignored it.<br /><br />DBC, yes, agreed to all that (landowner, monopolist, what's the difference?), problem is - we are not running at anywhere near full capacity, and we know whose fault that is.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-81562541872768041722013-12-10T13:31:01.623+00:002013-12-10T13:31:01.623+00:00There's no denying that real wages are going d...There's no denying that real wages are going down in the UK.Whether the surplus is going to capital is not entirely obvious; the land taxers argument is that its going into inflated land values.<br />The central Marxist tenet of surplus value, that there must be enough purchasing power in the general population to buy the products of the system working at full capacity, still applies surely.? Marx may have been wrong to say that surplus value was taken as commercial profit but lack of demand remains a problem because the overmortgaged masses are prepared to take wage stagnation in return for untaxed capital gains in the "value" of their houses. We have ended up with none of the benefits of capitalism or socialism.DBC Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891849727783879145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-81181414577520954142013-12-10T12:24:36.461+00:002013-12-10T12:24:36.461+00:00Bugger explaining it all, his three paras are just...Bugger explaining it all, his three paras are just self evident bollocks. The bit about 'Chinese savings' is the dead giveaway.Lolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04586735342675041312noreply@blogger.com