Trudeau is a CRIMANAL

He sounds like Nigel Farage

Gary is having a discussion with a very closed minded economist, unfortunately.

Ed Davey is paid by a lot of EU businesses, ever wonder if this affects his view. Wonder why the IEA did not bring this up, paid off too?

“Spontaneous order” sounds great in theory, but in reality, markets don’t always self-correct - they crash, exploit workers, and wreck the environment. Market failures, monopolies, and short-term profit-seeking show that pure laissez-faire economics leads to inequality and instability. Even successful capitalist economies rely on planning - public investment gave us the internet, infrastructure, and basic social protections. The real question isn’t _market vs. planning_ but how much planning is needed to stop markets from failing society.

Thanks for cutting through the farmers’ propaganda. Finally, some truth.

Yeah lads.... let the market regulate it. Apart from when huge conglomerates buy up land and then hoard it till it doubles/triples in value and then invite in parasitic homebuilders that throw up cheap shit and make 60/70% profit on it. twats...

Gary talks well but knows nothing. Just silly argumentations, no data, no facts, just an snake oil salesman

This, for a large part, only successful in theory. I’m an urban designer and I can point at numerous examples of where local authorities ’have left the market flourish’ instead of working for an overall vision e.g. carving up the land into a series of disjointed red line boundaries and allowing the biggest fish in that market to do what they like. Often to the detriment of other businesses or any sense of social cohesion. Planning has been made to be a scape goat of late. And even though it can be frustrating at times it is mostly a good thing. Letting the market have free rein is a recipe for disaster.

The reality is that the IEA has massive funding from Koch Brothers and the Sarah Schaife Foundation who have billions of dollars in fossil fuel investments. Our high electricity prices are set by the high cost of gas. We need to use as little gas as possible by accelerating renewables and storage. We also need to decouple gas from electricity to show the cheaper costs of renewables rather than gas. The IEA are funded to make you vote against your interests. Don't fall for it.

With respect of your guest I would sign with my blood if "Britain by the end of this Parliament will be a lot more French" that would be an improvement because what I am seeing here is an Italianization of Britain, French and Germany.

Cameron called the referendum to try to close down the UKIP threat to the Tories. He had used the tactic of referendums to shut down the electoral reform debate and Scottish independence. He thought he could use the same tactic to shut down the Brexit debate. He never expected to lose. Therefore, the Tories and the political establishment never had any plans how to implement it. Theresa May was a remainer and saw it as a problem which Steve Bannon makes clear. Bannon argues that Trump wanted to do a bilateral deal, but May was horrified and saw Brexit as a problem that had to be managed. Our political class, the Westminster bubble, are not sure what to do and are now intellectually bankrupt.

Who likes to watch Nosferatu everyday again and again? Can we watch a comedy, please?

You are a dodgy climate-change-denying pressure group with undisclosed funding sources, not an “institute” at all. No one is listening to you, so please shut up.

Government is the cancerr

If people want to invest in such a high tax Country it is still going to take decades to get there

Many often mispresent the late Mr. LKY. While he did not want his opponents to use loud tactics to oust him, he was attentive to the people's concerns and even held closed-door discussions. For example, when one of his ministers proposed that young women serve in national service, many parents were horrified by the thought of their daughters being away. In traditional families-whether Chinese, Malay, or Indian-the idea of allowing their daughters to be away from home was inconceivable. LKY must have recognised these concerns, and his government dropped the proposal. Therefore, it may not be fair to label him as authoritarian. This incident reflects Singapore's political culture. While there is a desire for smooth sailing, the captain and crew must be mindful of the passengers' warnings. The political ideology is straightforward: Everyone must be cautious in the unpredictable ocean and safely reach the distant shore.

Ridiculous hairstyle. Can't take her seriously..lol.

Private ownership during the N∙S∙D∙A∙P∙ regime was more⧹higher *{in terms of extent}* than the extent of private ownership during the Weimar Republic era. Is this statement of mine True or False? Kindly answer my question.

Wouldn't trust the IEA as far as I could throw (and would if I could) - this was the lot that pushed Liz Truss and her agenda - what a bunch of twats - Won't say who they are funded by - ummm guess why - look to US ad see what you get with this lot -

Furlough scheme caused this rise in sickness benefits. People got a nice taster of sitting at home and getting paid for doing nothing and they loved it hence didn't want to go back to work again

~87% of England is not green belt. It does not restrict growth. It's just silly business people thinking they're entitled to a place at the top table, in London, Manchester etc who can't afford the premises, or the staff, so they resort to pathetic whinging.

Great conversation. People are immigrating to the west and housing supply is fixed. I think both IEA and Gary is correct. Bezos has so much more money if he buys a building company and starts building and selling houses it is not in his best interest and will only rent those houses out. Westerners moving to China and occupying cheap housing will work, but politically and culturally this won't happen. I can't learn Chinese and buying a cheap house in China doesn't make sense with employment opportunity there for me as an English speaker. Gary is correct about the rich bankrupting the government and forcing the government to pay them. IEA isn't paying enough attention to that. Gary is correct the rulers wan't the government broke so they can rule the people. The people don't want a weak bankrupt government only the ruling wealthy do. Musk has his housing as a gift from his company and doesn't pay real estate taxes. How many of us are so rich we can manage that. Eventually the government and most people will be so in debt that they reopen the debtors prisons. The point is if everyone is poor then we are in it together. If some people own others through debt there is strife. Gary's trying to get the IEA to understand wealth isn't money. They can't conceive of it within the context of free market economics. Gary misses one point though that the improvement of all people in society can occur from expansion of the economy, but he could be correct that the economic cycle and inequality creates an opportunity for shrinking economies and failures of society. Ray Dalio here in the US has spoken of it publicly.

You can still visit the empty Ghanaian tomato canning factories killed off by EU tariffs. Why do MP's not do their jobs with competence and put British buyers first? Cost of living problems are the result of lousy legislators.

Brian Kingham ran his businesses well and would have run the UK economy well. Why does Britain's parliament not have people in it like him who know what to do?

You speak as though we have significant gas resources available...but the truth is that we don't...the North Sea has been in decline since the mid 2000s and we are net importers of energy so have to pay international prices...the UK is not the USA....we don't have shale gas and oil...our energy prices will remain be high until we can decarbonise...

Let's ask about nations that shamelesdly abet and support genicide.

When only economic education you have is gained at 55 tufton. Seriously, invent a time machine and go get some education. You might want to visit the gym too.

Think it's clear, even if brexit was a good idea in theory the UK does not have the calibre of political or civil service capable of delivering. May as well go back at this point.

@fburton8 this is a good talk imo

She’s a far right lying woman.

Scumbags

This scunk at it again.lying

He makes a lot of sense. I've seen him talk elsewhere, worthwhile stuff

So Britain will never out-French the French.

They think growth will save them from getting the chainsaw out. It won't. We need to drastically reduce the size of government and fast.

"Stop telling me I have to eat less and excercise more. I enjoy eating and prefer TV to jogging". "Stop saying I need to cut out the coal and gas, theyre good for making cash". Ok? But reducing fossil fuel (or cake) consumption isn't a choice, it is simply something that must happen. If there are downsides, tough.

16:40 The combined contribution of employer and employee would need to be 60 to 70% of pay for 40 years into a DC pension to be equivalent to a public sector DB pension.

❤

A very positive and affirmative interview, thank you. Miles is doing great in Argentina, but why do you refer to it as Latin America? That's an old term is basically Central or South America...

What does Planned Obsolescence have to do with economics? Doesn't Capital and Consumer technology wear out all over the world? Where are the economists in every country talking about the Depreciation in That Country?

"Half of the difference between American and British living standards are down to low productivity, the other half is that Brits just don't work a lot" to my mind shows what a flawed measure of "living standards" GDP is....

So 83% was enough to paralyze business. Therefore similar tax rate should be enough to paralyze speculation with real estate. The 2008 proved that real estate does not bear the essential characteristic of a real investment: the RISK, because governments will always bail out such "investors" and banks. Taxpayer will pay and money will be printed. The SOLUTION is to remove the investment gain component from real estate. Thus making a purchase of a home serve its core function - a place to live. For that Capital Gains Tax of 80% should be introduced for properties and land on sale. To protect earlier investors, the tax should be calculated as yearly average from before and after the new tax date. The tax will discourage buying property as investment. To stimulate renovation business, lower capital gains tax should be applied for the 1st and 2nd year after a purchase (20% and 40%). Land without property will not have the 2 year tax discount. Changing housing should not be taxed at all to stimulate mobility, except when moving abroad. Gains from office spaces should be taxed at 80% too. The tax will: incentivize to sell unused property; discourage buying property as investment; generate considerable tax revenue for the state. It will considerably slow inflation; will allow young rent at urban hubs; no need to commute; less roads; less time wasted; students could afford studying in big cities; less government housing subsidies; stabilization of construction workforce as no more bubble/burst cycles; cheaper building materials and less construction waste; fewer related lawyers etc producing nothing but paper; cheaper rents for workers and businesses. The tax collected can be used to build social housing. At the same time income tax for rentals should be lowered to compensate and stimulate renting. So the buy-to-rent profitability will not be affected, but will allow more people to rent cheaper. Affordable housing is incompatible with investment. It is time to stop profiteers from collecting unearned income from gov investments in urban infrastructure - as a metro station nearby, for example, makes nearby property more expensive without any cost for the property owner. Besides, the profiteers spend their unproductively earned money competing with other people for scarce goods and services. For better picture governments should publish the total realized capital gain from real estate from the last 10 years. Pensioners and speculators will have to reallocate their assets, because nobody said that property investment gains are guaranteed. For example savers holding cash in banks have been punished enormously by artificially suppressed interest rates, but nobody protested. While actual pension funds do not offer such spectacular gains for a reason. Costs to recover from natural disasters or other housing troubles are almost always nationalized anyway - so capital gains should be nationalized too. Too much funds are allocated to housing. This takes away from productive investments and is the main cause of inflation.

This genius is advocating in investing more in the south east and draw more people down there, lol total clowns with no idea….! I am glad I left the UK in the early 2000s, we look back at debates like this and laugh at how backwards people like this are. We have Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra as alpha cities, even Perth & Adelaide would compare well to Manchester, the reason our economy is booming is the wealth of the nation from our resources has balanced economic distributions across the nation Esther than focussing it on an area the size of the Sydney basin

Aaaah I remember this lady she was the one on breakfast television the other day saying up was down and black was white and brexit could be good lol 😂 lost interest in this podcast as serious as soon as i recognised her!

what are you talking about not having an ideology that stops building. it's called the green movement. degrowth is a strong concept within this moment.

Discriminating against applicants on the basis of race. Is that racist? Hmmm let me think🤔

No, it *is* dishonest.

Yes but France is in a complicit mess in terms of public spending!

Reeves "impressive" REALLY NO she was talking Bollocks as usual.