taking from the poor and giving to the rich

[french frank]

as we know, Coalition policy in all areas of our life.... however this piece in the NYT by Krugman caught my eye since it reruns George Monbiot's analysis of the CAP in the EU and Mr Osborne and his merchant banker [failed] friend and their comments on food banks ...

I think this was the point akaCdaJ was hoping might be discussed. But perhaps there isn't much to be argued over?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Student funding is an area where there are problems, and unfortunately also a class divide. Bright students from poorer families should, in theory, be able to access the student loans etc. and take up courses, but many are scared do do so, so they don't get the education which would help them to progress. Middle and upper class students will usually take the loans, either because they realise they're going to help them, or their parents think it's a good investment. They may or may not put in the appropriate effort to make the best use of the help they are given.

As the caps gradually come off the charging for courses, a consequence of this will be that only students from richer families will have access to the best education. If a fix for this situation is to raise the student grants or loans, the landlords who charge exorbitant rents for poor quality housing will simply raise their rents.

The same type of behaviour would be expected of landlords who have tenants on housing benefits. If the benefits rise, the landlords will try to take a significant cut of any rise.

I think there are other examples of what might be called profiteering depending on the magnitudes of any funding which might be available.

Perhaps it's the case that all subsidies/benefits corrupt?

[Dave2002]

Perhaps it's the case that all subsidies/benefits corrupt?

Then there's Quantitative Easing, which many investors seem to like!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

But is that a subsidy or just devaluation by another name?

[teamsaint]

I'm not sure I can drag it back on to topic, but financial "fixes" do seem to have some strange effects.

Student funding is an area where there are problems, and unfortunately also a class divide. Bright students from poorer families should, in theory, be able to access the student loans etc. and take up courses, but many are scared do do so, so they don't get the education which would help them to progress. Middle and upper class students will usually take the loans, either because they realise they're going to help them, or their parents think it's a good investment. They may or may not put in the appropriate effort to make the best use of the help they are given.

As the caps gradually come off the charging for courses, a consequence of this will be that only students from richer families will have access to the best education. If a fix for this situation is to raise the student grants or loans, the landlords who charge exorbitant rents for poor quality housing will simply raise their rents.

The same type of behaviour would be expected of landlords who have tenants on housing benefits. If the benefits rise, the landlords will try to take a significant cut of any rise.

I think there are other examples of what might be called profiteering depending on the magnitudes of any funding which might be available.

Good post D2K+2.

However, I would just have a sligthly different take on it, in that I suggest that the effects are not "slightly strange" but much more "intended to help those at the top".
They seem strange from a perspective that expects governments to act impartially, or for the benefit of the many.
Money is being channelled into the pockets of the rich and powerful. look at public spending, remorslessly aimed at corporations rather than individuals. (hence the failure to bring down public sector borrowing?)

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

whatever the intent, claimed or actual, of QE it is generating profit and bonuses for the banking classes ... and indeed it would be surprising were it not so since the mental models of the world which lead to it are those of the power elites in finance business and politics ...so that in their world it is nonsense to argue against it on the grounds of who benefits and who pays ... these topics are not relevant to their arguments that the banks and their markets must not fail as an absolute priority - and without reform or closure of the criminal organisations that are currently rewarded by QE [LIBOR, Rate fixing on Forex, PPI above all was an organised and collective felony sufficient to get every board member's pay and bonuses for twenty years confiscated under the proceeds of crime rules. unless of course the SFO Chief is off duty doing her expenses]

AIC illustrates perfectly the role of the mental world view of neo liberal rationalism .... here is another free market view of climate change:

"Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. The evidence on the seriousness of the risks from inaction or delayed action is now overwhelming..The problem of climate change involves a fundamental failure of markets: those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay.."[

Lord Stern wrote that ..... the scandal of Walter Marshall had something to do with the figures used to support the proposals for Nuclear Energy in the 1981 White paper and the DCF factors were definitely part of the fix, as well as leaving out the decommissioning costs ... AIC it is not that i think the establishment are wrong or incompetent; it is that i think they are gangsters

more gangsters

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Neo liberal rationalism? Whatever next, although I doubt the liberal bit. Still, if you want to exchange pigeon-holing on a thread which you seem determined to divert to climate change (speak to EA and FF) then I would say you illustrate perfectly the new world of earth 'science' lunacy.

Until you can provide some facts about Lord Marshall, I'm not interested. The idea that he'd select an exaggerated DCF to make a case, given his position as a figurehead of the CEGB which ate DCF analyses for breakfast, is, I think, unlikely.

[Dave2002]

But is that a subsidy or just devaluation by another name?

I suspect it is really a form of devaluation, but those "clever" investors find that the value of their shares tends to go up as a result, or so I'm led to believe. This means that those rich enough to hold shares benefit, while Joe Bloggs has to pay. It is of course more complicated than that, as not all investment is bad, but we are currently noticing quite high inflation in some basic commodities IMO, which means that poorer people will have to spend more of what they've got on essentials, and some may find it very hard indeed. If the "clever" investors are getting 5-10% on their investments, then maybe they are simply standing still when this is offset against inflation - but as I've already written, most "ordinary" people are having to pay more to survivie.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

AIC as i read the thread i did not introduce climate change, i responded to your remarks about subsidies for wind energy [and pointed out that you had made them elsewhere].... i do not shift on my assertion about Marshall, i have checked with professional colleagues and they recall the scandal, i do not propose to spend any further effort on it, if you do not recall so be it ....

free market small state philosophy is generally designated as neo-liberal these days ....a return to the old Manchester Liberal School and not much to do with the Lib Dems or old Liberal Party ... the dogma of the neo lib or neo con [confusing innit] fits tightly into the preservation of the wealth of the rich at the sacrifice of the lives, well being and living standards of the many poor both here in the EU and in the USA ....

my young friend argued that a social cataclysm or revolution would be utterly irrelevant in the face of climate change since he foresaw mass extinction of humanity with that galling cock sureness of youth, neither he nor i would support subsidies for wind farms; he because they are beside the point [imminent disaster]; on my part because they are not a country size solution ... and let the politicians pretend to be addressing the issue by giving money to their chums ... still they have always done that .... AIC you seem sanguine on all counts, i am not at all sanguine about the criminality of the elites and the growth of devastating inequality

both Stern and Will Hutton would argue for a major investment strategy to address our economic decline and climate change ...indeed a huge opportunity; but it will never be addressed by the gangsters who are running our countries in their own interests

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Your first paragraph:
In #7 you said

yes but AIC two things bother me . . . and the second thing is that you have banged on about them before [not on this thread], and i tend to agree that they are not thought through, i do not wish to agree with you because i expect a load of climate change denial of the saloon bar sort as practised by a certain Mr Neill to start pouring forth ... perhaps you might clarify your views for me? ....

OK, sorry I shouldn't have bothered.
Your reply re Marshall is hearsay. None of my friends in the industry recall the scandal. And of course I can't recall the scandal because it never happened. When did you stop beating your wife?
I'll remain sanguine until I see something that causes genuine concern. Perhaps you should also read Lomborg's Sceptical Environmentalist. He's been at it again actually, rather tiresomely looking at data rather than hysteria:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/20/lomborg-lets-get-our-priorities-right/#more-90194

Incidentally, you mention Stern. For someone exercised about DCF factors, Stern's selection of DCF is absurd, far too low for mitigation policies and thus over-valuing them.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

that was not introducing it though now was it
try this for energy policy

In February 1981 the Select Committee on
Energy reported on this policy change. This report
was followed by a Monopolies and Mergers
Commission (MMC) report on the investment
decision making record of the Central Electricity
Generating Board (CEGB). The Select Committee
supported the cancellation of two further AGRs
at Heysham and Torness and were ‘unconvinced’
that the CEGB and the Government had made out
a solid case for such a big nuclear programme.
They were joined by the MMC in criticising the
CEGB’s investment appraisal and demand
forecasting assumptions and procedures.

putting it politely as it were

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Other than responding to you (#39), yet again.


Yes, your reference is very 'politely'. In fact all they're doing is donning 20*20 hindsight glasses and criticising the size of the proposed nuclear programme - not the financial appraisal. And 1981 would be years before Marshall

Not even close, and certainly no cigar.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

you are right, there must have been two scandals then ...

[Dave2002]

It's looking hopeless to divert this thread back in the direction which I thought it was intended to go. Climate change may be a particular instance of symptomatic problems, but I thought we were trying to look at policies and behaviours which would divert resources from the poor to the rich. Climate change levies and FiTs may well be one such way, but they are not the only way.

I only partially agree with AIC. My view is that the "business as usual" - let's just keep burning fossil fuels, or "great, now we can frack and use shale for the next 100 years" are bad policies if there is no attempt to manage our energy generation and consumption much better than we are doing now.

[ahinton]

It's looking hopeless to divert this thread back in the direction which I thought it was intended to go. Climate change may be a particular instance of symptomatic problems, but I thought we were trying to look at policies and behaviours which would divert resources from the poor to the rich. Climate change levies and FiTs may well be one such way, but they are not the only way.

I only partially agree with AIC. My view is that the "business as usual" - let's just keep burning fossil fuels, or "great, now we can frack and use shale for the next 100 years" are bad policies if there is no attempt to manage our energy generation and consumption much better than we are doing now.

Hear, hear!