New Statesman tells it how it is: > Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > General Discussion > General Discussion

Subject: New Statesman tells it how it is:

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Author

Messages

Asteve

Activist

Posts:930

06/06/2008 9:49 AM	Alert
http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2008/06/house-prices-housing-british "As Britain wakes up to the nightmare of negative equity, we are facing a housing recession far worse than that of the early 1990s. Iain Macwhirter has a warning: don't buy a house now, at any price. Just say no. You have been warned." Not a bad opening paragraph... and the rest of the article isn't awful either.

unclealbert

Activist

Posts:442

06/06/2008 9:30 PM	Alert
You might have hit a chord with Lucy with this picture! Circumstances will always dictate our futures.

chefdave

Activist

Posts:477

07/06/2008 1:31 AM	Alert
Good article, the only bit I would disagree with is the 'housing shortage' idea. This has always been a V.I justification for insane prices with no grounding in reality. In order to help alleviate some of current problems I propose the solution of a general strike on paying Council Tax. This will allow much needed flexability in families' budgets and coerce the authorities into being more prudent with the taxes they do raise via income tax, N.I, VAT, fuel duty etc, which is more than enough to be able to provide the basics such as rubish collection. As a form of civil disobediance its the most effective as it hits the authorities where it really hurts, is easy to implement, harms nobody, benefits individuals and hard working families and takes no effort whatsoever. As the credit crunch starts to bite I think this idea will become more popular.

Asteve

Activist

Posts:930

07/06/2008 8:14 PM	Alert
I think the article adequately deals with the myth of a shortage of supply... it notes that if it were not for significant net inward migration, there would significant spare housing capacity. The thing that is significant to realise next is that without an over-valued currency (i.e. a currency which simultaneously encourages inwards portfolio investment in UK mortgage debt and escalates British wages when accounted in foreign currencies) both the high influx demand for accommodation and the availability of finance to bid prices to obscene levels evaporates simultaneously. Dave I think your idea of boycotting the council charge is a bonkers suggestion. A far better idea would be to boycott stamp duty by only ever offering sums sufficiently low as not to attract it. There are a million properties for sale... there is no significant shortage of property. I think that offering tiny sums for properties you want to own will become quite popular in the near future.

chefdave

Activist

Posts:477

08/06/2008 3:39 AM	Alert
Asteve wrote: "Dave I think your idea of boycotting the council charge is a bonkers suggestion" Thanks, I would say its more wishful thinking on my part. I think its justifiable on the grounds that the majority of voters are not represented either at the local or national level and so ALL tax is questionable as the spending plans have been legitimately agreed to by the few. Its just that Council tax is particularly vulnerable to be used as leverage when gov't goes to far. From a common sense point of view I don't think it offers real value for money, considering the above inflation increases in Coucil Tax and the lack of essential services such as dentistry and child care (not Sure Start either, I mean real child care without lessons in how to show poor people the 'correct' way of bringing up a child) As for offering below the stamp duty threshold, I think thats going to be forced on people now as the funding has been taken away and is certainly preferable for buyers anyway. Its not what I would consider political action and there's nothing to stop Labout lowering the threshold, they're going to have to find the money from somewhere if they're not going to break their golden rule of 'only' borrowing 40% GDP to meet spending commitments. If you think this is politically intolerable then just consider the doubling of the 10p tax and the planned rise in vehicle excise duty.

Asteve

Activist

Posts:930

08/06/2008 5:40 AM	Alert
Frankly, council tax is a tiny part of the tax burden. Sure it is inefficient and wasteful; sure it has increased at above headline inflation - but, really, I hope you realise how idiotic it is to even try to compare the numbers directly. Compared with other taxation iniquities, council tax shines as one of the least unfair. Compare, for example, council tax with taxes on earned income. Sure, basic tax is "only" 22% (or 20% next year) - but this entirely misses the point. For a start, you will be paying employees NI (~10%) and your employer will be paying employers' NI (~12%) (both applied to your gross, not net salary) - and then, when it transpires that the gross is insufficient to secure accommodation - so you work overtime - you nearly double your basic tax to higher tax. Furthermore, if - for example - you are issued with a mobile phone and a company vehicle (in order to facilitate your being sufficiently productive to command a salary sufficient to live on) then you're taxed on those as "benefits in kind." As you start to work harder - and, frankly, aspiring to earn over £36K is hardly super-rich, your tax bill quickly escalates to over 60% of any additional income. With punitive income taxes like these, is there any surprise that council tax is on the up? Compare this with capital gains tax... which currently stands at 18% dead. No national insurance; no 'assumed benefits' - and a tax that may be deferred indefinitely; and that if you manage to afford a home in a tax haven will be waived entirely - or be capped as a one-off payment of £30K for a "non-dom". This is obscene. Fortget council-tax; forget dropping10p tax (that was, actually, an honest idea, if unpopular among the less mathematically inclined and a tiny minority who genuinely were better off before.) I see absolutely no reason why someone should be penalised with punitive taxes for working longer hours in the face of adverse economic effects on the cost of living and quality of life. The real solution would be to drop all tax to an identical, say 25% levy. This would include all forms of wealth accumulation - including both earnings and capital gains. I've no objection to state aid for those who genuinely can not cope - but I think it is preposterous that ( a ) those who choose to work less because they are wealthy with a subsequent lower cost of living are taxed at a lower rate than poorer people who work harder through necessity. ( b ) Those who earn by the passive hoarding of assets (spare houses; wine; art; leveraged equity and hedge fund investments; share options - etc.) pay a lower rate of tax than those who earn a living by work. I am utterly against council tax 'offering' child care - this should be offered commercially. I see no reason that responsible parents who 'bust-a-gut' to do their best for their child (giving up work; establishing care to the standards they want) should be hamstrung by a bunch of state supported sprog-poppers. Council tax should pay for essential local public works - facilities that everyone is free to enjoy. I find the mere idea of state-child-care to be deeply sinister - a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

chefdave

Activist

Posts:477

08/06/2008 7:03 AM	Alert
Asteve wrote: Frankly, council tax is a tiny part of the tax burden. Sure it is inefficient and wasteful; sure it has increased at above headline inflation - but, really, I hope you realise how idiotic it is to even try to compare the numbers directly. Compared with other taxation iniquities, council tax shines as one of the least unfair. Sorry but this is untrue, at least in my experience anyway. In my last place I was paying 50% of the monthly council tax bill yet it was roughly the same as my N.I contributions and exactly half of my income tax. This is not a 'shining example' of an unfair tax its an example of just another expensive tax that hits low earners the hardest and one which could be easily boycotted is its not taken out of your pay packet before it is received. If I attempted to pay that tax alone then it would be around TWICE my N.I contributions and MORE than my income tax, in other words depending on how much you earn is directly comparable to other taxes. Asteve wrote: Compare, for example, council tax with taxes on earned income. Sure, basic tax is "only" 22% (or 20% next year) - but this entirely misses the point. For a start, you will be paying employees NI (~10%) and your employer will be paying employers' NI (~12%) (both applied to your gross, not net salary) - and then, when it transpires that the gross is insufficient to secure accommodation - so you work overtime - you nearly double your basic tax to higher tax. Furthermore, if - for example - you are issued with a mobile phone and a company vehicle (in order to facilitate your being sufficiently productive to command a salary sufficient to live on) then you're taxed on those as "benefits in kind." As you start to work harder - and, frankly, aspiring to earn over £36K is hardly super-rich, your tax bill quickly escalates to over 60% of any additional income. With punitive income taxes like these, is there any surprise that council tax is on the up? Completley agree. Taxing production is counter productive if we want a healthy economy, particularly as the more productive we become the more we're taxed. This seems somewhat perverse considering the £1.3t of personal debt we hold as a nation, which needs to be paid off unless we're going to create a systemic banking crises. It creates a poverty trap whereby there seems to be little incentive to work harder as the system ensures that we're not better off. Asteve wrote: Compare this with capital gains tax... which currently stands at 18% dead. No national insurance; no 'assumed benefits' - and a tax that may be deferred indefinitely; and that if you manage to afford a home in a tax haven will be waived entirely - or be capped as a one-off payment of £30K for a "non-dom". I don't have a problem with CGT being lower than income tax, if you're implying Labour should raise capital gains and in return be able to reduce income tax then I want some of what your having. A minority of individuals make money solely through investment so are not going to be able to support tax reductions for around 59million plus that work for a living, even if CGT was raised by 12-24% and you taxed non doms till your heart was content. Asteve wrote: This is obscene. Fortget council-tax; forget dropping10p tax (that was, actually, an honest idea, if unpopular among the less mathematically inclined and a tiny minority who genuinely were better off before.) I see absolutely no reason why someone should be penalised with punitive taxes for working longer hours in the face of adverse economic effects on the cost of living and quality of life. The real solution would be to drop all tax to an identical, say 25% levy. This would include all forms of wealth accumulation - including both earnings and capital gains. I've no objection to state aid for those who genuinely can not cope - but I think it is preposterous that ( a ) those who choose to work less because they are wealthy with a subsequent lower cost of living are taxed at a lower rate than poorer people who work harder through necessity. ( b ) Those who earn by the passive hoarding of assets (spare houses; wine; art; leveraged equity and hedge fund investments; share options - etc.) pay a lower rate of tax than those who earn a living by work. Balls. The real solution is a land tax, if people want to outbid each other on assets such as expensive wine and fine art then they can do that till their hearts content, it makes no difference to me or indeed most 'normal' people. If they want to stock up on housing however this is another matter entirely. A 25% levy doesn't address the fundamental problem of the state taxing citizens that which they have rightfully aquired either through hard work or inheritence. You see that there is an imbalance in that speculators are less penalised under the tax system than workers but by creating a new system where they are both sytematically robbed equally is missing the point. Asteve wrote: I am utterly against council tax 'offering' child care - this should be offered commercially. I see no reason that responsible parents who 'bust-a-gut' to do their best for their child (giving up work; establishing care to the standards they want) should be hamstrung by a bunch of state supported sprog-poppers. Council tax should pay for essential local public works - facilities that everyone is free to enjoy. I find the mere idea of state-child-care to be deeply sinister - a recipe for disaster if you ask me. Ha, do you find the idea of state sponsered schooling a recipe for disaster too? That is just a glorified form of state child care after all. The only people that can afford private childcare are those that earn the most; doctors, lawyers etc, those that cannot have an almost impossible task of balancing child care with work commitments in order to ensure the basics of living. State child care gives working parents a real choice in how they want to run their lives, I don't know why you associate this idea solely with 'sprog-poppers'. Its an example of public money being spent in a way that materially benefits the public, one in which I have no objections in paying for; even if it doesn't benefit me directly.

Asteve

Activist

Posts:930

08/06/2008 8:24 AM	Alert
I think it unlikely that your council tax bill exceeds your NI costs... don't forget that the lion's share of NI is charged to your employer and it never turns up on your paperwork. Council tax is extremely obvious - but that doesn't make it the elephant in the room. On CGT you utterly miss the point. The point is this: our economy is skewed by substantial number of people who are structuring their affairs to make capital gains rather than earn money. This leads to resource misallocation - and ultimately damages productivity. This, for example, is - in no small part - why a significant number of moderately affluent painters and decorators would rather buy a property; decorate it how they'd like - then sell it again. They might be awful at general DIY and the "work" they undertake is entirely inappropriate for the future occupants. They will, however, prefer to 'renovate' a property rather than run a painting and decorating business that serves a real public demand because it is more tax-efficient to record their efforts as capital gains. Similarly, further up the food-chain, directors are incentivised by share options rather than salary - since the former has tax advantages. The upshot is that our businesses are run with a short-termism as directors recognise that their challenge is to maximise a share price at a fixed date in the future rather than establish a robust, efficient and scalable business. The "game" of associating financial gain with capital gain as opposed to income is arbitrary, murky and grey... it makes business massively less competitive - and impoverishes the UK relative to other nations with longer-term visions. Dave "Balls. The real solution is a land tax if people want to outbid each other on assets such as expensive wine and fine art then they can do that till their hearts content" First, I think it ironic that you want a land tax but you advocate not paying your council tax. You also miss the point about these 'supposedly' rich people who "outbid each other on assets" - they're trading by stealth. (N.B. Trading attracts income tax and NI.) I am not concerned about what they choose to do, I am concerned that they earn good livings by doing so - doing what looks for all the world like (easy) work - then acquire money that is not deemed to be income for tax purposes. I've no objection to their gross - but where their gross equals that of someone who worked for the money, it is perverse that they have different tax liabilities. This skews the market again - it encourages people to engage in socially non-productive activities and damages the real tangible wealth. We don't fix anything by incetivising people to dabble in investment rather than work. Dave: "Ha, do you find the idea of state sponsered schooling a recipe for disaster too?" It is difficult to argue that the system is not failing the people. Maybe because government see it as state sponsored childcare rather than offering education? A strategy to put adults to taxable work while sapping ambition from their offspring? Do you really believe, having admitted that you think the council tax is way-over-priced that the most efficient way to provide decent child care is to trust it to the same trough-gorging-councils that don't deserve to be paid council tax? The major point about state involvement is that - even if they do remarkably well - it is assured to be grossly inefficient. The state has a role... law and order; regulation; dispute resolution; health and transport policies can't realistically be addressed by the private sector... just about everything else can be. Like yourself, I don't mind paying for services I do not use - if I feel they benefit others in my community. I resent, however, being forced to pay for them as it eliminates my influence to decide if they are good services or bad. If I'm paying for them, I want a say. It is when control is separated from those who pay the bills that waste and inefficiency runs rampant... at best... and positively counter-productive activity is far from unusual.

chefdave

Activist

Posts:477

08/06/2008 9:08 AM	Alert
Re painters and decorators: The game isn't to leverage up and take massive risks becoming a property developer although I imagine a minority of tradesmen will take this route, the more sensible option is to hire a decent accountant and keep a sensible amount of work off the books so as to lower tax liabilities. If there was a more straightforward tax such as land then these people would be able to offer the services to the community without wasting resources in hiding their productive efforts from the state. A 25% levy would not stop this problem btw. Asteve wrote: "I think it ironic that you want a land tax but you advocate not paying your council tax" Its not ironic at all, firstly the council tax is a skewed example of a proper land tax, secondly I advocate taxing land instead of production not as well as. I see no contradiction in my position. Asteve wrote: "You also miss the point about these 'supposedly' rich people who "outbid each other on assets" - they're trading by stealth. (N.B. Trading attracts income tax and NI.) I am not concerned about what they choose to do, I am concerned that they earn good livings by doing so - doing what looks for all the world like (easy) work - then acquire money that is not deemed to be income for tax purposes. I've no objection to their gross - but where their gross equals that of someone who worked for the money, it is perverse that they have different tax liabilities. This skews the market again - it encourages people to engage in socially non-productive activities and damages the real tangible wealth. We don't fix anything by incetivising people to dabble in investment rather than work." These people that are "trading by stealth" are clearly being sensible and shielding their gains from the taxman. It would be foolish not to. You're still not addressing the fundamental issue of how the tax is being raised, you could raise capital gains to 30% on anything upto £36k and 50% on anything after that, would that make you feel better? Your tax liability still hasn't been lowered although it would even up the system somewhat. If these people have money to splash around for investments then they should be prepared to lose out when the market collapses, in which case they will have to work for a living. If people think they can make a living by speculating in wine and hoarding it from others then I sy good luck to them. It makes no difference to me and never will as I can quite happily live without a 200 year old bottle of French plonk.

Asteve

Activist

Posts:930

08/06/2008 9:25 AM	Alert
I differ, I don't even think the notion of "a 25% levy" is coherent - let alone practical. The levy would alter the value of land-ownership - and, hence, be self-defeating as mechanism of taxation. I agree that those "trading by stealth" are being sensible and shielding their gains from taxation. The problem is that they're rewarded by the tax system for altering their behaviour in a non-productive way. I do not advocate punitive taxation to alter people's behaviour - I advocate a fair taxation system that doesn't reward those who structure their affairs in a particular way to "avoid taxes" - by making taxes transparent and evenly applied. If A and B both become £100K better-off in one year, they should pay an identical amount of tax - in my view. I can understand, but don't agree, that A should pay more than B if A is more affluent than B... the current system is the converse... A pays less than B if A is more affluent than B. That's perverse. Where I think you miss my point is that my objective is not to lower my liability. My objective is to promote a system whereby wealth (as distinct from money) is maximised - and this is done by removing perverse disincentives. It is, to no small part, the perverse incentives/disincentives that spark economically damaging bubbles... and it is dishonestly politically motivated fiscal and monetary policies which perpetuate them for private gain. I don't care about the wine; art or other speculative assets. I care that money acquired that way is not taxed at the same level as money acquired another way. This has the effect of skewing our economy to reward those who speculate in wine or art etc. over those who do not. I would have the same view if casinos were able to pay less tax than everyone else... it promotes casinos. This is likely extremely bad for mankind - though, in the context of pervese incentives, every individual may be acting rationally.

chefdave

Activist

Posts:477

08/06/2008 9:50 AM	Alert
Asteve wrote: "I differ, I don't even think the notion of "a 25% levy" is coherent - let alone practical. The levy would alter the value of land-ownership - and, hence, be self-defeating as mechanism of taxation." The 25% levy was your suggestion, I was simply picking up on the point that if this was introduced then tradesmen or anybody with enough clout or money would still find ways of hiding their gains from the tax man. It still wouldn't stop land speculation either as the old 40% CGT proved and so I don't see how you suggestion would lead to cheap housing. As for it being a self defeating measure of taxation I don't agree. That money is going to have be paid anyway and if the state doesn't take it then a private landlord would, I can so reason why this should be the case. If landlords want to keep hold of their land then they should put it to good use or leave it for somebody else that will, there's money to be made from offering decent temporary accomodation I'm sure as not everybody wants to own a home. But becoming a property millionaire for sitting on an asset and holding it from others is an unjust way to make money. More so than trading wine then claiming you've profited from asset appreciation rather than trading.

Asteve

Activist

Posts:930

08/06/2008 10:06 AM	Alert
I suggested a 25% tax on all accrued wealth... be that from income or capital gains. There's quite a difference. The gross figures for the tax I propose are already known. By making the same tax payable irrespective of how people structure their affairs, they can structure their affairs to be most efficient from the perspective of generating wealth rather than avoiding tax. This specific suggestion would not directly lead to "cheap housing" in itself, but would empower people to pay for suitable accommodation to cover the costs incurred in providing it. As I've explained previously, we've not so much seen a bubble in houses, but a bubble in mortgage debt. The former's speculations were mere amoeba in the grand scheme of things... as reckless credit was offered to anyone with a pulse who met the criteria needed to securitise the debt. The price of existing houses is resolved by elimination of predatory lending... which can be achieved by enforcing existing regulation on mortgage lenders and adopting a monetary policy that respects savers. I've suggested numerous other suggestions as to how cheap housing can be provided... essentially it is about shifting the balance of power from those who are selling to those who are buying. This always provides substantial real benefits.

Magrathea

Activist

Posts:434

25/06/2008 12:21 PM	Alert
”This specific suggestion would not directly lead to "cheap housing" in itself, but would empower people to pay for suitable accommodation to cover the costs incurred in providing it.” You’re missing the subtleties of ‘the land game’; you can’t ‘empower’ people to buy housing for use without disempowering the speculators ability to gain passively from simply holding land. Speculators will now be ‘disabled’ for a while but as we can see, the real economy which would be used by people to put a roof securely over their head is now disintegrating. As I've explained previously, we've not so much seen a bubble in houses, but a bubble in mortgage debt. The distinction is pointless and misses a point; it is easy to show that the ultimate cause is the inflation in land prices allied with the nature of land investment rather than the banks (for some peculiar reason entirely unrelated to land) suddenly making money making available. The advantages of land speculation were passed along in instruments, but the ultimate actual focus and cause was the nature of land. “The former's speculations were mere amoeba in the grand scheme of things... as reckless credit was offered to anyone with a pulse who met the criteria needed to securitise the debt”. Money became more available because land became a one way bet And the more that was offered, the more land became a one way bet.

Asteve

Activist

Posts:930

26/06/2008 6:40 AM	Alert
"you can’t ‘empower’ people to buy housing for use without disempowering the speculators ability to gain passively from simply holding land." Doah! Whoever suggested that we care about passive gains for speculators? Speculators are welcome to their gains and their losses... what we have to do is empower people to buy homes. There are 4 keys to doing this: 1. A stable and predictable credit market in which risk is honestly and transparently accounted. 2. A monetary policy which does not favour those with debt over the short, medium or long terms. 3. A monetary policy which does not significantly penalise those who dispose of assets sooner rather than later. 4. A financial regulatory body that is not a laughing stock - but ensures systemic honesty and prosecutes fraud. You're right that "money became more available" - for one definition of money, anyway... and not only land but any tangible asset that does not deteriorate rapidly and is unrelated to the monetary fraud becomes a one way bet. You're wrong that it became more available because land became a one way bet. The converse (i.e. that more money becoming available making property a one-way-bet) is almost true, but - in reality... money became more available and land became a one-way bet because credit risk (to use the broadest term) was fraudulently accounted. This fraud permitted both a rapidly expanding money supply and rapidly rising asset prices. This "one way bet" remains such until the fraud is uncovered... and, very broadly speaking, that happened last summer. Since then some bankers have been arguing in favour of strategies to seep the fraud under the carpet - while other, more sensible, people argue for transparency and proper audit.

slicedcake

Activist

Posts:296

26/06/2008 12:11 PM	Alert
Posted By Asteve on 26/06/2008 6:40 AM Doah! Whoever suggested that we care about passive gains for speculators? Speculators are welcome to their gains and their losses... what we have to do is empower people to buy homes. There are 4 keys to doing this: But it's usually a case of gains outweighing the losses for those well practiced in those financial black arts.

Asteve

Activist

Posts:930

27/06/2008 1:33 AM	Alert
Posted By slicedcake on 26/06/2008 12:11 PM But it's usually a case of gains outweighing the losses for those well practiced in those financial black arts. I think you are missing the point. Those who are "well practised" are either wise enough not to actually invest but to skim margins... (a bit like the shovel shops at the time of the gold rush) and of the participants, you only hear from the survivors... very few proudly boast about how many million they lost through what, with hindsight, was obviously stupid. A few get richer, most get poorer. It is rather like playing high-stakes roulette.

slicedcake

Activist

Posts:296

27/06/2008 1:14 PM	Alert
"A few get richer, most get poorer. It is rather like playing high-stakes roulette." Sort of. But not quite random. Like playing poker when some can read the marked cards maybe. Not that i know much about poker.

Magrathea

Activist

Posts:434

27/06/2008 2:35 PM	Alert
“Doah! Whoever suggested that we care about passive gains for speculators? Speculators are welcome to their gains and their losses... what we have to do is empower people to buy homes.” It sounds like you have missed my point You can’t empower people to buy houses easily, without removing (in some way) those passive gains because the passive gains strongly incentivise acts that make it more difficult to buy houses to use. The market (as you visualize it) cannot untangle this mess and make the rewards of speculation in some way commensurate with the benefits provided and the risk taken because there is no benefit provided, the risk is not needed by anybody and the activity produces costs for others. ”You're right that "money became more available" - for one definition of money, anyway... and not only land but any tangible asset that does not deteriorate rapidly and is unrelated to the monetary fraud becomes a one way bet.” Give some examples of other tangible assets that hyper inflated like real estate before the ‘credit crunch’

Magrathea

Activist

Posts:434

27/06/2008 2:40 PM	Alert
"I think you are missing the point. Those who are "well practised" are either wise enough not to actually invest but to skim margins..." Well practiced in arts that provide no benefit and inflict non-consensual costs on others I think you are missing the point

Asteve

Activist

Posts:930

28/06/2008 2:34 PM	Alert
Magrathea: "You can’t empower people to buy houses easily, without removing (in some way) those passive gains because the passive gains strongly incentivise acts that make it more difficult to buy houses to use. The market (as you visualize it) cannot untangle this mess and make the rewards of speculation in some way commensurate with the benefits provided and the risk taken because there is no benefit provided, the risk is not needed by anybody and the activity produces costs for others." Magrathea: "I think you are missing the point" If that was the point, I can see why I might - it falls something short of coherent. I don't want to "empower people to buy houses easily" - I want to preserve the value of money - thus avoiding government inflicted asset bubbles that are extremely damaging to the economy and to the lives not only of domestic citizens, but also foreign citizens subject to exploitative outwards direct (and indirect) investment. People should be free to buy whatever they want to buy with their money. It is wholly unreasonable for real-estate to be special cased as suitable collateral, by estimated value, on the balance sheets of companies that would otherwise be insolvent. I think you need to consider that, maybe, I'm not "missing the point" - but, in fact, disagree with you that 'nothing but land matters'. I've read your hypothesis and have decided that, considering all the evidence, you are simply wrong. You are suffering from a classic case of tunnel vision - no different to the tunnel vision that has lead to the sub-prime crisis and the worldwide economic slowdown that could still turn into an international depression. Forgive me if I don't take your word at face value.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > General Discussion > General Discussion > New Statesman tells it how it is:

ActiveForums 3.6