On Feb 16, 8:37*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Feb 15, 7:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/02/13 17:21, harry wrote: On Feb 15, 1:21 pm, "Dave Plowman
(News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* * tim..... wrote:

I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on living in
poverty in a million pound house, (and then complain about it!)

My house is far larger than I now need - but it is my investment to
pay
for decent care if I ever need it. Selling it and buying somewhere
smaller
then investing the balance doesn't seem like a good idea in these
times.

Too true. The gov. is robbing anyone with any money saved.
You should have bought solar PV panels.

sand then you can rob EVERYBODY yourself.
People that send their kids to state school are robbing everyone.

Nope, not when they are paying more tax than average.

They should be made to pay for their kids education.

They already did, with the taxes they paid.

Also people with bus passes.

Depends on what taxes they pay.

Also people who eat food.

Even sillier.

Also people with a state pension.

Even sillier.

According to your barking mad theories that is.

Even sillier.

All these are subsidised by one means or another.

On Feb 16, 12:44*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,









*harry wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:02*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

You should have bought solar PV panels.

Watched a Grand Designs again last night - the eco house half buried.

"Which was the most disappointing of all the 'eco features' you did?"

"The solar panels."

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

* * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW
* * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I didn't see it.
Was it a repeat of the one where there was an existing quarry?
What sort of solar panels?

I get an 18% (tax included) return on my outlay.
How is that disappointing?

Not to you, obviously, but you are benefiting from the proceeds of theft.



So is anyone using one of the numerous subsidised services in the UK.

On Feb 16, 1:01*pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/02/2013 08:37, Rod Speed wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...

On Feb 15, 7:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher









wrote:
On 15/02/13 17:21, harry wrote: On Feb 15, 1:21 pm, "Dave
Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article , tim.....
wrote:

I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on
living in poverty in a million pound house, (and then
complain about it!)

My house is far larger than I now need - but it is my
investment to pay for decent care if I ever need it.
Selling it and buying somewhere smaller then investing the
balance doesn't seem like a good idea in these times.

Too true. The gov. is robbing anyone with any money saved. You
should have bought solar PV panels.

sand then you can rob EVERYBODY yourself.

People that send their kids to state school are robbing everyone.

Nope, not when they are paying more tax than average.

I suspect people who install PV arrays are already paying more tax than
the average in order to afford their installation, so that makes it ok?

We are certainly getting robbed more than the average.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/2013 08:37, Rod Speed wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...


On Feb 15, 7:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/02/13 17:21, harry wrote: On Feb 15, 1:21 pm, "Dave
Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article , tim.....
wrote:

I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on
living in poverty in a million pound house, (and then
complain about it!)

My house is far larger than I now need - but it is my
investment to pay for decent care if I ever need it.
Selling it and buying somewhere smaller then investing the
balance doesn't seem like a good idea in these times.

Too true. The gov. is robbing anyone with any money saved. You
should have bought solar PV panels.

sand then you can rob EVERYBODY yourself.

People that send their kids to state school are robbing everyone.

Nope, not when they are paying more tax than average.

I suspect people who install PV arrays are already paying more tax than
the average in order to afford their installation,

That's harder to say. They may well have put
more effort into minimising the tax they pay.

so that makes it ok?

Never said anything about whats ok, I was JUST
pointing out that that claim of harry's is a lie.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:43:34 +0000, polygonum wrote:

On 16/02/2013 09:21, PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:05:38 +0000, polygonum wrote:

On 15/02/2013 18:42, PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:51:12 +0000, polygonum wrote:



Or maybe relate the prescription length to the cost of the medicine?

As I say, in my case, £12 a year. Honestly, I can't believe it is worth
doing even two prescriptions rather than one!

We do see (if you read Pulse!) lots of complaints over the work burden
on doctors of handling repeat prescriptions. That could be reduced. :-)

It would be useful if all doctors took that view. A couple of medicines
wouldn't be too serious if I ran out of them but the Warfarin...! That could
prove fatal or worse if I didn't have it.

And that too is a cheapie:

Warfarin (Non-proprietary) Prescription only medicine

Tablets, warfarin sodium 500 micrograms (white), net price 28-tab pack =
£1.67; 1 mg (brown), 28-tab pack = 86p; 3 mg (blue), 28-tab pack = 86p;
5 mg (pink), 28-tab pack = 92p. Label: 10, anticoagulant card

Brands include Marevan®

Get the impression the cost is in the regular testing.

Yes, that's what the INR nurse told me. I'm now tested every 2 months - it's
a bit nerve-wracking as I need 6 months within therapeutic range before
ablation.

What? They're going to put you through re-entry into the atmosphere?

Same sort of effect but with a laser - I don't have to go for the freefall
(Skyfall?) record :-)

Fingers crossed.

Ta (or is that for re-entry?).
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 8:37 am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Feb 15, 7:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/02/13 17:21, harry wrote: On Feb 15, 1:21 pm, "Dave Plowman
(News)"
wrote:
In article ,
tim..... wrote:

I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on living
in
poverty in a million pound house, (and then complain about it!)

My house is far larger than I now need - but it is my investment to
pay
for decent care if I ever need it. Selling it and buying somewhere
smaller
then investing the balance doesn't seem like a good idea in these
times.

Too true. The gov. is robbing anyone with any money saved.
You should have bought solar PV panels.

sand then you can rob EVERYBODY yourself.
People that send their kids to state school are robbing everyone.

Nope, not when they are paying more tax than average.

They should be made to pay for their kids education.

They already did, with the taxes they paid.

Also people with bus passes.

Depends on what taxes they pay.

Also people who eat food.

Even sillier.

Also people with a state pension.

Even sillier.

According to your barking mad theories that is.

Even sillier.

All these are subsidised by one means or another.

In fact they are actually paid for by tax payers, so
those tax payers who pay more than the average
tax arent robbing anyone when they use them.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 12:44 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,









harry wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:02 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

You should have bought solar PV panels.

Watched a Grand Designs again last night - the eco house half buried.

"Which was the most disappointing of all the 'eco features' you did?"

"The solar panels."

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I didn't see it.
Was it a repeat of the one where there was an existing quarry?
What sort of solar panels?

I get an 18% (tax included) return on my outlay.
How is that disappointing?

Not to you, obviously, but you are benefiting from the proceeds of theft.



So is anyone using one of the numerous subsidised services in the UK.

Nope, taxation aint theft. We have different words for a reason.

On Feb 16, 8:42*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,









*harry wrote:
On Feb 16, 12:44*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*harry wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:02*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

You should have bought solar PV panels.

Watched a Grand Designs again last night - the eco house half buried.

"Which was the most disappointing of all the 'eco features' you did?"

"The solar panels."
I didn't see it.
Was it a repeat of the one where there was an existing quarry?
What sort of solar panels?

I get an 18% (tax included) return on my outlay.
How is that disappointing?

Not to you, obviously, but you are benefiting from the proceeds of theft.
So is anyone using one of the numerous subsidised services in the UK.

What you are doing is not using a service you need to survive.

--
Tim



Anyone with savings these days is subsidising people with a mortgage.
So if you have a mortgage, you are being subsidised.
Wait 'til interest rates rise. Then we'll see who's being subsidised.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 8:42 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,









harry wrote:
On Feb 16, 12:44 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:02 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

You should have bought solar PV panels.

Watched a Grand Designs again last night - the eco house half
buried.

"Which was the most disappointing of all the 'eco features' you
did?"

"The solar panels."
I didn't see it.
Was it a repeat of the one where there was an existing quarry?
What sort of solar panels?

I get an 18% (tax included) return on my outlay.
How is that disappointing?

Not to you, obviously, but you are benefiting from the proceeds of
theft.
So is anyone using one of the numerous subsidised services in the UK.

What you are doing is not using a service you need to survive.

Anyone with savings these days is subsidising people with a mortgage.

Only if they have the savings where interest is paid on the savings.

It isnt true if their savings are in real estate without a mortgage.

So if you have a mortgage, you are being subsidised.

Bull****.

Wait 'til interest rates rise. Then we'll see who's being subsidised.

More bull****.

In message om,
"dennis@home" writes
On 15/02/2013 10:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2013-02-15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:

It's tricky - overall I don't think means testing is a good idea,
for reasons ranging from admin cost to stigma. I'd like to think
people who don't need or use a benefit hand it back, but then I
like to think a lot of things ;-)

Hand it back *how* ?

Write a cheque and send it to No.11 Downing Street.

Who should I make the cheque out to?


"Help the aged".
HM Treasury

But if you really want to annoy them send them cash in a registered
letter. One chap kept doing that with his 25p per week age allowance
(80+) They pleaded with him to stop!!
--
bert

In message , Another Dave
writes
On 15/02/2013 09:43, Chris J Dixon wrote:

Though I have benefited, I don't think the original decision to
introduce these at 60 for everybody, instead of at state pension
age, was right.


AIUI, at the time they were introduced the pensionable age for women
WAS 60. Sex equality legislation made the age 60 for men also.

Another Dave


It made it the same for men as women, which was one of the drivers
behind raising the pension age for women.
--
bert

In message , Another Dave
writes
On 15/02/2013 18:50, PeterC wrote:

Other factors affecting cost are things such as there being a contract for
the buses to run (so no real cost for passes) as on my route and how much if
the buses are cancelled and the drivers and ancillary staff are out of work.
Add in the extra medical costs due to lack of activity (although earlier
death might balance this) and pensioners spending in shops in the town and
the savings aren't that much.


I hadn't thought of it like that but, on reflection, you're probably right.

I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths going
to/coming back from a meeting with their probation officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have been paid
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.
--
bert

On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths going
to/coming back from a meeting with their probation officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have been paid
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths going
to/coming back from a meeting with their probation officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have been paid
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

On 18/02/2013 09:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths going
to/coming back from a meeting with their probation officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have been paid
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/02/2013 09:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths going
to/coming back from a meeting with their probation officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have been paid
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

No point, the govt budget papers should spell out the bulk of it.

In message , Fredxx
writes
On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths going
to/coming back from a meeting with their probation officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have been paid
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

There's always some would be smart arse who asks that stupid question.
No I just made it up our of thin air.

--
bert

On 18/02/2013 20:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/02/2013 09:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths
going to/coming back from a meeting with their probation
officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have
been paid make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to
the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

No point, the govt budget papers should spell out the bulk of it.

So then, no reference or any calculation to confirm the nonsense that
pensioners make a net contribution of £40b to the economy then.

On 18/02/2013 22:17, bert wrote:
In message , Fredxx writes
On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths going
to/coming back from a meeting with their probation officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have been paid
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

There's always some would be smart arse who asks that stupid question.
No I just made it up our of thin air.


I saw others fell for it as well :-)

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/02/2013 20:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/02/2013 09:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths
going to/coming back from a meeting with their probation
officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have
been paid make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to
the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

No point, the govt budget papers should spell out the bulk of it.

So then, no reference or any calculation to confirm the nonsense that
pensioners make a net contribution of £40b to the economy then.

I don't bother with any reference to the FACT that Labour
lost your last election for the HoC either, because even you
should be able to work out how to verify that if you doubt it.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:39:09 +0000, Roger Mills
wrote:

On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Indeed. Not being a pensioner I would think that it is working people
who would need a larger allowance as pensioners generally have lower
outgoings.

Personally, I'd rather have it as an increased personal allowance for
everyone. That way, it doesn't get clawed back when my total pension
income exceeds a certain threshold.

I would also support means testing things like bus passes and winter
fuel allowance.

+1. Since the government is taking away other universal benefits it
would be consistent to do this.

Not so sure about prescriptions and eye test. Older
people tend to have a greater need for these. Free dental treatment
would be good, too.

Personally I think free dentistry and eye tests should be more widely
available to encourage people to look after themselves.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:21:51 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on living in
poverty in a million pound house, (and then complain about it!)

My house is far larger than I now need - but it is my investment to pay
for decent care if I ever need it. Selling it and buying somewhere smaller
then investing the balance doesn't seem like a good idea in these times.

I'm sure you've done the sums but I would expect you so save on bills,
council tax etc in a smaller house.

House prices have been static in many areas so you may not be getting
a better return than selling/investing.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:21:51 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on living in
poverty in a million pound house, (and then complain about it!)

My house is far larger than I now need - but it is my investment to pay
for decent care if I ever need it. Selling it and buying somewhere smaller
then investing the balance doesn't seem like a good idea in these times.

I'm sure you've done the sums but I would expect you
so save on bills, council tax etc in a smaller house.

That's unlikely to pay for decent care if he ever needs it.

House prices have been static in many areas

For now. They never stay static forever.

so you may not be getting a better return than selling/investing.

Sure, that's possible. But its also possible you will do worse too.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
I don't bother with any reference to the FACT that Labour
lost your last election for the HoC either, because even you
should be able to work out how to verify that if you doubt it.

Every party lost the last election - so what's your point?

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:21:51 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tim..... wrote:
I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on living in
poverty in a million pound house, (and then complain about it!)

My house is far larger than I now need - but it is my investment to pay
for decent care if I ever need it. Selling it and buying somewhere
smaller then investing the balance doesn't seem like a good idea in
these times.

I'm sure you've done the sums but I would expect you so save on bills,
council tax etc in a smaller house.

Council tax here is low. The costs of moving house high. And I don't want
to move anyway. ;-)

House prices have been static in many areas so you may not be getting
a better return than selling/investing.

Have a look at my postcode. ;-)

--
*Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off NOW.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/02/2013 20:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 18/02/2013 09:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2013 21:00, bert wrote:
In message , Another Dave

snip


I hardly ever use mine; the buses seem to be full of youths
going to/coming back from a meeting with their probation
officers

Another Dave
Pensioners on the whole after all pensions and benefits have
been paid make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to
the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

No point, the govt budget papers should spell out the bulk of it.

So then, no reference or any calculation to confirm the nonsense that
pensioners make a net contribution of £40b to the economy then.

He's some information he

http://www.wrvs.org.uk/news-and-even...by-40-billion-

It is, of course. based upon "soft" contributions, but that doesn't mean
that they aren't valid. It is how "economic contributions" are measured for
every other case, be it the set of 18 years olds or the benefits of a new
road.

tim

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:35:30 +0000, Mark
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:39:09 +0000, Roger Mills
wrote:

On 14/02/2013 13:13, Nightjar wrote:
On 14/02/2013 11:40, David WE Roberts wrote:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31778

Petition against the removal of additional tax allowances for pensioners.

Vote early, vote often :-)

If you are canvassing for votes against the removal of additional tax
allowances, it might be a good idea to explain why you think that the
increase in personal allowances for those over 65 does not adequately
compensate for them.

Colin Bignell


I agree. I suppose some would argue that this doesn't maintain the
differential between pensioners and non-pensioners. But I'm not sure
exactly what the case for a differential is.

Indeed. Not being a pensioner I would think that it is working people
who would need a larger allowance as pensioners generally have lower
outgoings.


As a pensioner you'll have significantly less income as well. Even if
you are one of the lucky few who have contributed to a final salary
scheme for 40 years, the most you will get is 2/3 of your salary. Most
people will end up with much less than half the pay the were earning.
Not that I think there's much of a case for different tax allowances
just because your old.

Fredxx writes:

make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Every party lost the last election - so what's your point?

That's at least in part because there are too many parties. Given that
there is no point to the LibDems, they'd make everyone's life a lot
easier by just giving up.

;-)

Personally, I can't see the point in any of them.

--
*If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bill Taylor wrote:
As a pensioner you'll have significantly less income as well. Even if
you are one of the lucky few who have contributed to a final salary
scheme for 40 years, the most you will get is 2/3 of your salary. Most
people will end up with much less than half the pay the were earning.
Not that I think there's much of a case for different tax allowances
just because your old.

Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off your
mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no more of
the often considerable expense of getting to work and subsistance there.

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:28:32 GMT, lid
(Windmill) wrote:

Fredxx writes:

make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.

IIRC the balance of trade for the UK has been in the red conistently
for many years, if not decades. We don't hear about it so much in the
media nowadays since organisations can borrow more easily. So it's no
surprise that things are unravelling now.

The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

In the run up to the financial crisis banks were increasing leverage
increasing their risk.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
I don't bother with any reference to the FACT that Labour
lost your last election for the HoC either, because even you
should be able to work out how to verify that if you doubt it.

Every party lost the last election - so what's your point?

That's at least in part because there are too many parties. Given that
there is no point to the LibDems, they'd make everyone's life a lot easier
by just giving up.

Except that the generic protest vote would just go somewhere else

tim

On Feb 19, 10:14*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *Mark wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:21:51 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* tim..... wrote:
I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on living in
poverty in a million pound house, (and then complain about it!)

My house is far larger than I now need - but it is my investment to pay
for decent care if I ever need it. Selling it and buying somewhere
smaller then investing the balance doesn't seem like a good idea in
these times.
I'm sure you've done the sums but I would expect you so save on bills,
council tax etc in a smaller house.

Council tax here is low. The costs of moving house high. And I don't want
to move anyway. ;-)

Plus the dreaded stamp duty.

On Feb 19, 12:28*pm, (Windmill)
wrote:
Fredxx writes:
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.
Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.


I think the main trouble is that only work creates wealth.
There's a lot of people out there forgotten this.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 12:28 pm, (Windmill)
wrote:
Fredxx writes:
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.
Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.

I think the main trouble is that only work creates wealth.

That's mindlessly simplistic bull****.

There's a lot of people out there forgotten this.

harry writes:

On Feb 19, 12:28=A0pm, (Windmill)
wrote:
Fredxx writes:
make a net contribution of some =A340bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefit=
s.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.
Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.


I think the main trouble is that only work creates wealth.
There's a lot of people out there forgotten this.

Obviously if no one worked in any way, there would be an immediate
disaster.
But for some people, in fact many, work doesn't create wealth. They
work hard but never earn very much. For them, work just maintains them
in poverty (though that's better than total starvation).

I have trouble understanding how an economy gets going in the first
place. It must be some kind of a bootstrap process, but it isn't clear
to me how it works.
If you imagine an isolated, primitive country where at first there is
no such thing as money, how does it all start up?
Wealth, understood to mean goods and services, could exist almost from
the start, but its translation into tokens - money - must take some
time.
Social decisions have to be taken in some way to establish whether
people who dig coal are 'worth' less or more than the people who
organise the tokens.

Pensioners may not be able to contribute as much to society as they did
when they were still able to work, but they look after grandchildren,
spend the money they saved and/or the pensions to which past work
entitled them in ways which provide employment for others, and can
sometimes provide useful advice based on experience.

I'm pretty certain though that lack of work, in the form of millions
unemployed and billions of potential man-hours lost forever, must
reduce the overall standard of living.
And that building submarines, aircraft carriers, and atom bombs, which
governments won't want to sell to others until they're obsolete, is
likely to be less helpful to society than building railways and
airports.
(Unless, of course, there's a danger of invasion and a chance of
avoiding that by the use of weapons.)

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Every party lost the last election - so what's your point?

That's at least in part because there are too many parties. Given that
there is no point to the LibDems, they'd make everyone's life a lot
easier by just giving up.

;-)

Personally, I can't see the point in any of them.

I hear the Monster Raving Loony party is still in existence.
So I know who to vote for.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Mark writes:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:28:32 GMT, lid
(Windmill) wrote:

Fredxx writes:

make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.

Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.

IIRC the balance of trade for the UK has been in the red conistently
for many years, if not decades. We don't hear about it so much in the
media nowadays since organisations can borrow more easily. So it's no
surprise that things are unravelling now.

The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

In the run up to the financial crisis banks were increasing leverage
increasing their risk.

You have to choose a sensible fraction to make Fractional Reserve
banking safe. And avoid playing games intended to get around the rules.
100% reserve means the bank keeps all the money it began with and never
makes any loans. That's obviously disastrous for the bank: no income.
50% reserve means that the bank loans, in total, no more than the
amount it originally began with (taking into account the fact that
every loan creates a deposit). That's pretty safe, but too conservative.
10% might be about right, in good times at least.
1% is demonstrably dangerous.
Having politicians or bank CEOs deciding on a day to day basis what
reserve is wise, according to no rules at all, must be the worst
possible way to run a bank.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On Feb 19, 7:35*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Feb 19, 12:28 pm, (Windmill)
wrote:
Fredxx writes:
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.
Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries, and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates, and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand, almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.
I think the main trouble is that only work creates wealth.

That's mindlessly simplistic bull****.


It's manifestly true.
You are clearly one of the halfwits the doesn't know it.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 7:35 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Feb 19, 12:28 pm, (Windmill)
wrote:
Fredxx writes:
make a net contribution of some £40bn per annum to the economy.

Can you cite any source for that?

Shouldn't be hard to work out what is paid out in pensions and
benefits.

The bulk of that is spent in the economy somehow.
Then could you be kind enough to make that calculation?

I'm very unhappy about what I see and hear about 'the economy'.
Repeatedly, people talk about it as though it were a relatively
simple matter like a household budget.

People with an axe to grind talk about it in those terms, and only a
few point out that it's not a simple matter.

The first thing to say is that money flows. Obvious, but repeatedly
ignored.

Better perhaps to compare the economy with the human circulatory
system, as a very much over-simplified analogy.

Blood flows from large arteries, branches to ever smaller arteries,
and
they in turn branch to little arterioles.
Tiny veins collect the returning blood, and they join a network of
ever-larger veins, eventually ending up back at the heart.
For a variety of reasons, a part of the body may be routinely,
occasionally, or permanently deprived of blood or of adequate flow.

To avoid spending money in the economy, a pensioner could get his/her
pension as banknotes and put it under the mattress. I doubt if many do
that nowadays.

Buying from outside the country takes money out of the economy, but so
long as we have a proper balance of trade, people in that other
country
buy goods or services from us, so we and they both benefit.
If we don't have a balance of trade, our politicians will cover the
shortfall by borrowing, and that is where we can get into very deep
trouble.
The lenders, often foreign, can keep bumping up the interest rates,
and
will do, especially if we keep borrowing more and more. Forcing us to
borrow still more; pay-day lending on an international scale.

Almost anything else returns the money to the economy.

Putting it in a bank in fact multiplies the amount of cash in the
economy, because banks then lend it out again in order to make a
profit.
The loan is spent somewhere, somehow.
(Some of the loan may of course leave the country or be put under
mattresses.)
So the person who deposited the money 'owns' that cash, and the
person(s) receiving the loans, or the people they buy from, also 'own'
a similar amount of cash.

Most of the money the banks lend returns to the banks (not necessarily
to the same bank, but ultimately it will be distributed among all the
banks), or returns as tax to the government (who will then spend it,
returning it to the economy).
In theory the government could just keep the tax, so that there would
be a continuous steady decline in the amount of money around, but as a
long-term goal a continuous decline in the money supply is obviously a
bad idea.

Banks need and have a mechanism for limiting the amount loaned (money
can't be allowed to increase without limit; that causes price
inflation).
Fractional Reserve banking is one such mechanism.

The DIY aspect of this is that one has to struggle to understand,
almost
from first principles, what's going on, because nothing is taught,
nothing is explained, and what little is said by politicians is untrue
or half-true at best.
I think the main trouble is that only work creates wealth.

That's mindlessly simplistic bull****.

It's manifestly true.

Its mindlessly simplistic bull****.

You are clearly one of the halfwits the doesn't know it.

Nothing to know, ****wit.