Simple economics
 

I've just read Margo Grimshaw's column in the LT she aired a statement her mother used make

Income £1
Spend 19s-11p Happiness
Spend £1-1s Misery.

Don't think her mother was fare wrong do you

Re: Simple economics
 

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield

Re: Simple economics
 

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty one pounds including lending money to a near-neighbour in even worse financial straits, result total insanity. :rolleyes:

Re: Simple economics
 

Simple economics has always been your lots way jaysay.:D

Re: Simple economics
 

Except for gold - somebody already sold that - at cut price for no valid reason.:rolleyes::rolleyes:;)

Re: Simple economics
 

And it weren't my lot either Barrie:D

Re: Simple economics
 

There are several versions of simple economics. As you guys and I live in a consumer society, it should go something like this: the strength of the economy is based on consumers (the population as a whole) consuming the products of industry and the services that are provided. There is something called the "multiplier effect" which goes something like this: a high percentage of what people earn is spent in consumption. This spending goes back into the economy, fueling its stability and growth. Simple. Keynes and Galbraith would back me up on this.

And then there is the right-wing simple economics. This exports well-paid industrial jobs to areas of the world where wages are pitifully low, hours long, unions illegal, and worker safety legislation non-exisitent. Meanwhile, back home, the well paid jobs are replaced by minimum wage options (can you flip a burger?), easy credit (NINJA loans), and the dole (which is always in danger from government cut backs). The wealthy, individuals and corporations, line their pockets and escape tax through loopholes. The right wing governments justify this by claiming that there is a "trickle down" effect (Ronnie Raygun believed this; but what can you expect from someone who played second fiddle to a chimpanzee.) ... this means that the great mass of the population survive on crumbs.

But seriously folks, as the student protests are beginning to show, the shameful inequalities in the distribution of the national wealth is the major problem the world will have to face in the near future.

Re: Simple economics
 

Annual Income = £20.00pds

Annual Expenditure:

Beer = £10.00ds

Wenches = £10.00ds

Baccy/Gambling = £10.00ds

Result? Who cares!

Re: Simple economics
 

Don't you smoke?

Re: Simple economics
 

You pay too much for the broads ... most of them will do it for beer.:D:hidewall:

Re: Simple economics
 

Every month the Government tells us we have imported more than we have exported, they have done this for at least 60 years so I assume we are bust

Re: Simple economics
 

Oh Dear, Wadey - you're forgetting about the 'invisable earnings' - the sums earned by the banking sector in investing, for instance, in American Sub-Prime real estate. Just look at all the money that has earned us!

Re: Simple economics
 

or the trillions of pounds of income tax theyve failed to pay;)

Re: Simple economics
 

Income or Corporation Tax, C'Stan?

Re: Simple economics
 

There speaks a true ex-Barbary Coaster! :D