Jump to content

Badger

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    8,532

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Posts posted by Badger

  2. Posted

    2 hours ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

    If you're an obsessive accountant like Kevin anything concerning money is pretty orgasmic.

    I think that football finance is very interesting too - but point made by the OP is not "news."

  6. Posted

    3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

    He had a very positive effect. But the only way I can see him starting is if we leave out Barnes 

    That would be very unpopular on Twitter where all our fans seem to hero worship him.

  7. Posted

    15 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

    Perhaps in summary, blanket immigration is not the answer. Targetted at the right skillset it is, would you agree?

    If I were to summarise it myself, I would say that if the country wishes to ends its total reliance on imported labour it needs to greatly increase investment to increase productivity and skills. This will take at least a decade imo.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    5 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

    Is there often some value in the free things that no amount of accounting can really capture. Is it OK if we have less cash in our bank if we get to spend it on what we want rather than on rent that goes to an increasingly select few?

    I take your broader point about measuring living standards using non-financial means (although economists would argue that they, unlike accountants, do take "welfare" into account - externalities).

    I agree that lower migration would lower demand for rented housing (mainly) but I suspect that it would not do so to a great extent and certainly not enough to compensate for the economic disruption caused by any sudden major limitation on immigration. However, this is where you need the economic modeller and quantitative economists with better research (and maths) than me 😃)

  9. Posted

    5 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

    Does this necessarily follow?

    Sure having a big workforce drives up GDP and mitigates for an ageing population so the figures will work but does a high GDP equate to higher living standards? Is there often some value in the free things that no amount of accounting can really capture. Is it OK if we have less cash in our bank if we get to spend it on what we want rather than on rent that goes to an increasingly select few?

    It does if you look at the full sentence:

    "If you wished to limit immigration in the future you would have to accept much lower living standards or properly prepare the economy with massive investment in technology and training, but this would take at least a decade."

    If you stopped immigration suddenly the economy would move quickly into recession + some sectors - e.g health and social care would be in a crisis which makes the current situation seem like paradise! Other industries would also be affected very badly - e.g hospitality + some parts of agriculture + there are many other areas where we use migration to circumnavigate skills shortages.

    In the longer term, a period of prolonged investment and training might make growth with minimal migration possible but Britain's record on productivity growth and investment has been pretty poor for a long while, so it would take a different approach to what has been practiced in recent years (back to Ed Balls' "neo-endogenous growth strategy." 😄).

  10. Posted

    2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

    On the second point when I first heard of Help To Buy I thought exactly what you did- that will only lead to higher prices and won't solve anything.    But then I realised the futility of trying to apply free market principles to a market that is anything but free, shrugged my shoulders and thought that the only analysis worth having would be in the results and they could never really be seen.

    I think that relying on free market principles to run an economy is similar to using 17th and 18th century medical techniques. There was by this time some attempt at empiricism and experimentation but it was only in its infancy. I don't think that the free market is wrong, but that it is insufficient. Hardly any modern economists believe that the untrammelled free market is an effective way to run the economy* but that does not mean that we reject all its basic principles.

    Ceteris paribus, I can't think a more likely outcome to raising demand without a corresponding increase to supply than a price rise. You are right that the supply side of the market is constrained, which is why it could not fully respond to increased demand, hence it (Help to Buy) inevitably leads to rising house prices.

    * It is the dream of fantasist idealogues without convincing supporting evidence, which is why Truss et al talk of the "left-wing economic establishment." These economists are not necessarily left wing, but they reject some of the more fantastic religious fervour that some free-marketeers have.

  11. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

    I’ve never said we didn’t have total control now, I believe we do. The fact the Tories have decided to ramp up immigration anyway is just one of many reason they’re going to get a colossal kicking at the upcoming election.

    Successive governments have ignored the wishes of the majority on immigration since the days of Blair, as they have in many EU countries. It’s a large reason many populists are gaining votes on the continent, it’s only FPTP that stops smaller parties getting a foothold here 

    Why do you think that the Tories have allowed such a huge number of immigrants when it knows how unpopular it is? The simple fact is that it would be economically disastrous to stop it at present. I know populism is on the rise in western Europe and the United States (and beyond) but the irony is that there is a shortage of young people in the West - in a sane free market politicians would be fighting for immigrants! Of course, the free market right knew this but were happy to exploit the immigration issue anyway. 

    If you wished to limit immigration in the future you would have to accept much lower living standards or properly prepare the economy with massive investment in technology and training, but this would take at least a decade. Given peoples' preference for current consumption rather than long-term investment, this is a hard sell for politicians.

    • Like 2

  12. Posted

    45 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

    A good immigration system is one whereby numbers are set at a level that has the buy in of the domestic population and where the government has total control over who enters and limits it solely to skills the country is short of. Freedom of Movement had none of this 

    It is, of course, an important principle of democracy that govt policy has broad support of the governed. However, the domestic population needs to be given the correct information to form a decision, which is rarely the case.

    Since leaving the EU, the govt does have total control who enters the country legally and in a preliminary estimate the ONS says the figure was 1.2 million, mainly from outside the EU. Given the populist nature of the govt, I think it is a reasonable assumption that they believe the vast majority of it is necessary. They may make some pre-election promises and "pretend policies" (remember "immigration in the tens of thousands" anyone?) but they won't be properly enacted because of the huge impact on supply of Labour shortages. In short, limiting immigration at this point would be economically disastrous, and even the Govt knows it.

    "The provisional estimate of total long-term immigration for year ending (YE) June 2023 was 1.2 million, while emigration was 508,000, meaning that net migration was 672,000; most people arriving to the UK in the YE June 2023 were non-EU nationals (968,000), followed by EU (129,000) and British (84,000)."23 Nov 2023

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingjune2023#:~:text=1.-,Main points,) and British (84%2C000).

  13. Posted

    48 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

    You're making an excellent case for the reasoning behind the EU FOM Fen!

    From the poorer European regions the young can move to find work where its needed - and in the process drag up the poorer regions where eventually most eventually return too. Neither do they bring a lot of their dependents - a bit like us temporarily working in say London or few years before moving back and raising our families.

    Poland is the obvious example.

    This is an important point. One of the consequences of Brexit is that we limit our building capacity in any future attempt at building to address the problem. We have limited our supply capacity which makes meeting demand even harder. "Help to Buy" and similar schemes only increase demand and therefore will drive prices still hard. It is astonishing that the party of the free market do not understand this.

    • Like 3

  14. Posted

    On 03/04/2024 at 09:54, king canary said:

    But in your whole post you completely fail to mention you need to have THE DEPOSIT.

    That is most of the issue for young people who are renting. When I bought my first house the mortgage was actually about £500 p/m lower than my rent at the time- me and my wife could easily afford the mortgage. But we needed a sizable desposit even at 5% which was very difficult to save for when renting.

    Also to add in you'd need the £1,000 product fee, usually £1500+ in legal and conveyancing, likely another £1000 for surveys and valuations etc etc.

    So for this example house the couple will need likely close to £15k in savings.

    I've seen it suggested before that people who can demonstrate they have paid rent for a significant amount of time should potentially be eligible for 100% mortgages, which would be interesting but very risky.

     

    https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5ad327ce-d1be-4a48-b53e-5b23d7a5e1ab_903x586.png

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  15. Posted

    43 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

    No need to exaggerate at all when 70,000,000 is 3.5 times what the island can support in terms of a sustainable biological system hence the degrading biodiversity exacerbated by the ever-increasing proportion of land going to housing.

    Maybe the best thing for the UK would be for retirees who can afford it to move abroad.

    This would have been a lot easier if we hadn't voted for Brexit! With govt.s like Spain currently ending their Golden visas it would mean that us oldies would have to emigrate permanently, which you may not worry about, but we would have to pay all our tax there as well.

    • Like 2

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, hogesar said:

    He played 1200 minutes for us in the first half of the season, scoring 6 goals and getting an assist. We have had to be really clever in managing Sargent because we don't have an alternate option, because the replacement we signed is unfit and unsuitable.

    Idah could have made the difference away to QPR / Blackburn for example, when Sargent could only do 60 minutes or so.

    He didn't look a top striker at this level but he was the best sub-striker we had at the club.

    A loan for his development is all well and good if you find a ready, fit replacement. Otherwise, you simply hold off to the summer. 5 months.

    Your point is reasonable, but the same point has been made at every stage of Idah's career. It is not a black and white issue but on balance, I suspect that it was probably the right one - if Sargent gets injured, I may regret saying this! I suspect that the recruitment team probably expected that Van H was going to be rather better than he has seemed on the brief evidence that I have seen.

  18. Posted

    42 minutes ago, hogesar said:

    Exactly this? What other club in the top 8 loaned out their, I think it was second top scorer at the time? And even if we accept that he "had to go" to Celtic, then what on earth was Knapper thinking in signing a player that not only looks totally unsuitable anyway, but was massively unfit anyway! MID-SEASON!

    I'm delighted what the players and Wagner are achieving right now but it's literally in spite of our January window under Knapper, not because of it.

    Idah has needed a loan out for years and it has never been "the right time." He will come back a better player or attract a higher offer. We have not really missed him, but obviously might worry if Sargent is injured. However, tbh, when Sargent/ Barnes were out, he didn't look a top striker at this level: a loan for his development was the right decision in the circumstances.

     

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, hogesar said:

    I don't think we set up "too" negatively. People seem to confuse set-up with outcome. They're different and there's 22 players on the pitch that impact it.

    Exactly - we were pinned back but that doesn't mean that it was part of the game strategy - it simply meant that we kept losing the ball and couldn't get it back so were forced onto the defensive. As NCFC Analysis suggested - "The classic 3-0-6-2. Who needs a midfield anyway?" 

    This suggests that rather than sitting back we tried to moved the ball forwards too quickly, lost possession and then had to retreat  into all the space that left behind us. We did exactly as some of the Neanderthals recommend - got the ball forwards quickly - rather than "messed about at the back."

    Image

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...