To re-invigorate UK business

[FXX]

Depositors of a bank account are the ones who should be charged insurance premiums each period based on how risky the individual bank is. It can be taken out of your account as a percentage of your balance over time.

The stronger the financial strength of a given bank, the less the depositor should pay in insurance premiums. People can then decide on the trade off between how much interest they earn VS. how much they are willing to pay in insurance. Then they can go bank shopping.

It’s no different than buying flood insurance for your house based on its proximity to water.

If you choose not to insure then the depositor gets no bailout.

Personally I think its on par with inheritance tax and would go down like a lead weight. Also if different banks have different premiums based on their risk then there is a unfair policy that would ultimately drive all depositors to the cheapest banks.

that being said, isn't needed because banks have been forced to separate their normal banking operations with any investment or trading operations and no longer carry the type of risk we have seen in the past.

 

[FXX]

If you study the history of protectionism it’s the politically connected businesses who get the most protection while the business down the street which isn’t connected gets thrown under the bus.

In plain English, politically connected means you gave something of value to people in government.

A smart businessman will not only use government as a weapon against foreigners but against his fellow countrymen who may want to set up shop in his industry. Otherwise known as barriers to entry.

that's how the EU operates and it hasn't served them well given their decreasing share of global trade. Their protectionism causes complacency and less innovation and makes the EU less competitive on the global stage. These infographic says all you need to know about protectionism

I am not a fan of protectionism personally. It makes trade uncompetitive and it hurts the consumer because cheaper options are either blocked or subject to tariffs that make it impossible.

 

[Pat494]

Are you a flat-earther Pat?

Silly question,
But I do have my doubts about your old fashioned ideas. Are they mainly Marxist ?

 

[new_trader]

Silly question,
But I do have my doubts about your old fashioned ideas. Are they mainly Marxist ?

I say the factors of production should be in the hands of the private sector. Perhaps you can explain how this idea is old fashioned, or even more baffling, how you think it is a Marxist concept.

 

[Pat494]

Protected industries don’t innovate. Period. That’s where the term “government granted monopoly” comes from.

If you want your businesses to be able to export their goods and services outside Britain they have to be lean and mean because protection is not available once their products leave UK territory.

The Socialist Welfare model adopted in the late1940s can't possibly compete in the export game without high tariffs.
I used to work in Hong Kong when it was a democracy. UK products were unsaleable in their free market. Waste of time trying.

 

[Pat494]

I say the factors of production should be in the hands of the private sector. Perhaps you can explain how this idea is old fashioned, or even more baffling, how you think it is a Marxist concept.

Just asking. Seems the out dated US capitalist system is more your preference ?

 

[J Livermore]

Personally I think its on par with inheritance tax and would go down like a lead weight. Also if different banks have different premiums based on their risk then there is a unfair policy that would ultimately drive all depositors to the cheapest banks.

that being said, isn't needed because banks have been forced to separate their normal banking operations with any investment or trading operations and no longer carry the type of risk we have seen in the past.

You have a good point that some people might balk at having to pay an insurance premium. However, the deal could be sweetened by eliminating all income taxes that are derived from bank accounts.

If you think about it, any justification for taxing interest income would be gone because depositors would be paying for their own insurance coverage. Depending on what interest rates are during a given year, the depositor may even come out ahead of the game with the tax gone.

As far as the riskiness of any given bank goes, The Economist magazine pointed out years ago that plain old fashioned real estate lending can be just as risky as any other type of bank lending. It all depends on how you do it and how leveraged you are.

As for driving depositors to certain banks, it should be considered a good thing to drive depositors to less risky banks and not a bad thing. I wouldn’t want to pay a higher premium by going to a risky bank. Money in a bank is suppose to be safe.

In the end, the consumer pays for everything anyway. If not through higher taxes then in lower interest earned in bank accounts. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. TANSTAAFL. I’m just trying to make the consumer aware of their risks and to pay for it themselves if they choose a riskier bank.

 

[J Livermore]

The Socialist Welfare model adopted in the late1940s can't possibly compete in the export game without high tariffs.
I used to work in Hong Kong when it was a democracy. UK products were unsaleable in their free market. Waste of time trying.

So then ditch the socialism like New Zealand did. They were two weeks away from a governmental collapse when they finally made the change.

 

[counter_violent]

The Socialist Welfare model adopted in the late1940s can't possibly compete in the export game without high tariffs.
I used to work in Hong Kong when it was a democracy. UK products were unsaleable in their free market. Waste of time trying.

Was that back in the days of square steering wheels !
No wonder we couldn't sell anything.

 

[J Livermore]

Just asking. Seems the out dated US capitalist system is more your preference ?

In all the years I’ve been reading about economics I have come to realize that there are only two types of capitalism:

#1 Laissez-Faire

#2 Crony Capitalism

The America of today has nothing to do with Laissez-Faire capitalism as government officials (both elected and non-elected) are doing whatever it takes to regulate everything.

Are you surprised when I tell you that it’s illegal for farmers to grow peanuts and sell them to their fellow Americans without a license? Did you know no new licenses are being created and if you want one you have to buy one from an existing farmer?

Did you know the government regulates the size of holes in Swiss cheese?

Did you know the city of San Francisco regulates fortune tellers?

If I researched more I could go on with thousands of these examples. However, if I did, I don’t know if the people of this forum would be bored or laugh or even feel sorry for our loss of freedoms.

 

[Pat494]

US style capitalism just doesn't spread the wealth of the country around very much. The rich have much more than they could possibly need and the vast majority are too poor. As the billionaires run the administration whether Democrat or Republican the system that favours them getting even richer is unlikely to change soon.
Fair play ? Not likely. Votes are bought and sold there.

 

[J Livermore]

US style capitalism just doesn't spread the wealth of the country around very much. The rich have much more than they could possibly need and the vast majority are too poor. As the billionaires run the administration whether Democrat or Republican the system that favours them getting even richer is unlikely to change soon.
Fair play ? Not likely. Votes are bought and sold there.

That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. Read post #30 in this thread..The US practices Crony capitalism and not Laissez-Faire capitalism. There is a world of difference between the two.

In case you haven’t noticed, the world’s poor are still coming to America by the millions (both legal and illegal). Immigrants work harder than the American born poor who have babies they can’t afford, then look for some form of welfare to bail them out.

If the American born poor were better off under socialism then they would have moved to Venezuela, Nicaragua or even Cuba years ago. It’s not happening because it’s the other way around.

 

[Pat494]

Luckily there are lots of different systems out there but not to choose from. Most countries are stuck with the system they grew up with. There are haves and havenots in all the systems.
Socialism promises a lot for the havenots but fails to deliver, being so uncompetitive generally.
Capitalism widens the gap between the two.
What the ideal is I have no idea. They all have their drawbacks and positives.

 

[cantagril]

Luckily there are lots of different systems out there but not to choose from. Most countries are stuck with the system they grew up with. There are haves and havenots in all the systems.
Socialism promises a lot for the havenots but fails to deliver, being so uncompetitive generally.
Capitalism widens the gap between the two.
What the ideal is I have no idea. They all have their drawbacks and positives.

Oooookaaaay.....but then are we any further toward putative answers to the question in your thread title?....i.e invigorating UK business?

For myself, whilst the High Streets are indeed dying; to people who remember those halcyon days when they were central to the life of a community, it is indeed sad to see this rapid decline. That said, just as in the times before those same High Streets, there were different communities, there are different ones right now and in the fullness of time we'll begin to more clearly see the direction of travel.

We might not like it but the model that has been in place for 150+ years is finished. That does not mean that the High Streets will just crumble into dust but as all the commercial interests that drove their creation in the first place begin to adjust their own business models we'll see another shift.

Just because we may not have lived through a period when, say, the City of London was full of residential property and there was a far different usage mix than there is today, that doesn't mean that this won't change. As commercial and residential properties fall in sale and rental value with the decline in demand, then prices will also fall. At some point, properties will be repurposed where practical, or demolished and rebuilt....exactly has always happened.

I would argue that part of Pat's "reinvigoration" has already started with the enormous surge in change of use applications, modifications to planning regs and the fact that architect's practices are currently kept more than busy with conversion projects. I recall reading somewhere that some 30% of office space may soon be redundant..... and what about all that commercial property and the forest of Lease For Sale signs in every High Street?

In the short term, UK residential property prices will continue to rise but I wonder what will happen when even a modest percentage of inner city/town centre residential conversions begins to affect demand.

 

[Pat494]

If the Govts of the UK and elsewhere had not been so b. useless they could have saved the traditional high streets and the millions that depended on the businesses there. But no they just let the big boys and foreign competition ruin it.
Whole industries have disappeared because of a no tariffs policy. Trump is at least trying to stop the loss of jobs offshore.
Deep mind - the front runner in AI research and development was flogged off to Google. Not even a whimper from the politicians.

 

[J Livermore]

Luckily there are lots of different systems out there but not to choose from. Most countries are stuck with the system they grew up with. There are haves and havenots in all the systems.
Socialism promises a lot for the havenots but fails to deliver, being so uncompetitive generally.
Capitalism widens the gap between the two.
What the ideal is I have no idea. They all have their drawbacks and positives.

If in the future the world can greatly reduce or solve its overpopulation crisis, I think we should make it much easier for the people of the world to move from nation to nation and get citizenship. If a person is unhappy with their country of birth they should be able to choose where to live provided the country they want to move to doesn’t have an overpopulation problem.

 

[counter_violent]

Are you ready for the influx Pat. Anyone who can is leaving city life behind and heading for the country.
Hard to see how this will help the high streets.

Lockdown city living 'wasn't the best idea'

Caroline Langton chose Ramsgate over London as more people search for homes away from cities.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[cantagril]

.... If a person is unhappy with their country of birth they should be able to choose where to live provided the country they want to move to doesn’t have an overpopulation problem.

One of the looming challenges for every developed country on the planet.

There is indeed a housing shortage but not because we have too few houses but because there are too many people who want to live in them. It's not rocket science to work out what any imported population does to the national demographic even after just a few generations...and that's on top of increased longevity for the historical locals. If we can assess and publish on a daily basis the R number of the virus, I think we might just be able to do that for the population increase

Even if the push factors of countries of emigration are miraculously diminished in the next few decades, the pull factors of the countries of immigration will require a huge degree of political will to reduce and enforce - I just can't see that happening.

Of course, if the virus(es) do us all a favour by not only killing off some of the "spares" then the newer more timorous normal might give politicos the opportunity to introduce some more robust Fortress measures. In the meantime, it would seem that communal hand-wringing is about as good as it gets.

 

[Pat494]

If in the future the world can greatly reduce or solve its overpopulation crisis, I think we should make it much easier for the people of the world to move from nation to nation and get citizenship. If a person is unhappy with their country of birth they should be able to choose where to live provided the country they want to move to doesn’t have an overpopulation problem.

There is a conservative estimate of 100 million that would love to come to Europe from just India to escape the shithole they are forced to live in.
Your motives might be admirable but completely impractical I regret to say. Europe would quickly run out of resources that generations have built up and India would hardly notice an appreciable drop in numbers. They haven't the political will of the Chinese leadership to even address the problem. Two children per couple would be ideal.
Do-gooding can easily pull down a whole country to 3rd world levels.

 

[new_trader]

Do-gooding can easily pull down a whole country to 3rd world levels.

And this 👆 right there, what you wrote, is EXACTLY why Socialism fails every time it is tried!