When the BoE puts the problem down to the population "maintaining its living standards" it is difficult not to frame this as a deliberate policy to increase inequality. The alternative is to believe that they don't have a real handle on how economies work. Not being a fan of black and white answers I suspect the truth is almost certainly both.
Huw Pill seems firmly committed to the most conservative of policies. The country can only succeed by the poor getting poorer. He is consistent.
On housing, 2 possible aspects of social housing that do not get a mention. As well as providing affordable housing for the poorest, they enabled others to save and perhaps buy places of their own. And they also provided a degree of competition for private sector rentals.
May I suggest you have a serious and high-level conversation with directors at Groupe SOS in Paris, one of the largest not-for-profit organisations in Europe. They have an interesting 'business model', of finding the very best graduates from the best business schools in France, and running their entrepreneurial not-for-profit enterprise as a profit making business that can afford to invest all their profits in innovative social projects.
They started by helping drug addicts in Paris, realised that meant helping women in prostitution, went on into refuges and healthcare, then job training and work creation, and running hospitals and training centres and so much more.
I met with their managing director with a friend, who represented (then) Prince Charles in meetings to better understand Groupe SOS and their innovative approaches, to what was, in Britain, the work of volunteer charities, including Prince charles's own charity efforts.
Personally I would say their innovative and commercially financed methods are far more viable, especially today, and would offer better solutions for what you would like to achieve.
Lastly this; there are no shortages of investors for innovative social projects, provided they have a proper and viable Business Plan, are professionally run, and the management are realistic enough to achieve their interim targets. What you want to do is entirely possible, provided you are willing to do these things to achieve the end result you desire.
Ach: loaves and fishes for the 21st century, then?
(1) Is this "funny money" not merely heading to create yet another humungous bubble of virtual wealth, incrementally and inexorably unrelated to the value of either resources or labour?
(2) Is thus the surest way to cash in on all of this malarkey to in fact make a wee trip down to Paddy Power™ to see if themselves will give us odds on how Right Royally F#cked we are all going to be when that humungous bubble ultimately implodes?
I'm now very much looking forward to your further reports on this latest attempt on reaching escape velocity from reality, Ann.
Sending you warmest solidarity wishes - always! 😃🏴☠️
When the BoE puts the problem down to the population "maintaining its living standards" it is difficult not to frame this as a deliberate policy to increase inequality. The alternative is to believe that they don't have a real handle on how economies work. Not being a fan of black and white answers I suspect the truth is almost certainly both.
Huw Pill seems firmly committed to the most conservative of policies. The country can only succeed by the poor getting poorer. He is consistent.
On housing, 2 possible aspects of social housing that do not get a mention. As well as providing affordable housing for the poorest, they enabled others to save and perhaps buy places of their own. And they also provided a degree of competition for private sector rentals.
May I suggest you have a serious and high-level conversation with directors at Groupe SOS in Paris, one of the largest not-for-profit organisations in Europe. They have an interesting 'business model', of finding the very best graduates from the best business schools in France, and running their entrepreneurial not-for-profit enterprise as a profit making business that can afford to invest all their profits in innovative social projects.
They started by helping drug addicts in Paris, realised that meant helping women in prostitution, went on into refuges and healthcare, then job training and work creation, and running hospitals and training centres and so much more.
I met with their managing director with a friend, who represented (then) Prince Charles in meetings to better understand Groupe SOS and their innovative approaches, to what was, in Britain, the work of volunteer charities, including Prince charles's own charity efforts.
Personally I would say their innovative and commercially financed methods are far more viable, especially today, and would offer better solutions for what you would like to achieve.
Lastly this; there are no shortages of investors for innovative social projects, provided they have a proper and viable Business Plan, are professionally run, and the management are realistic enough to achieve their interim targets. What you want to do is entirely possible, provided you are willing to do these things to achieve the end result you desire.
Regarding the housing crisis, I just read about the success in Vienna with regards to low cost housing. The UK may wish to mimic the Austrian system.
"...the creation of 8,000 crypto currencies."
Ach: loaves and fishes for the 21st century, then?
(1) Is this "funny money" not merely heading to create yet another humungous bubble of virtual wealth, incrementally and inexorably unrelated to the value of either resources or labour?
(2) Is thus the surest way to cash in on all of this malarkey to in fact make a wee trip down to Paddy Power™ to see if themselves will give us odds on how Right Royally F#cked we are all going to be when that humungous bubble ultimately implodes?
I'm now very much looking forward to your further reports on this latest attempt on reaching escape velocity from reality, Ann.
Sending you warmest solidarity wishes - always! 😃🏴☠️