In Europe, we have to pay for the recklessness we threw money during the pandemic, for the money we borrowed, for the money we printed out of thin air, for the very high energy prices due to failed green policy and for the war in Ukraine.
People in other parts of the world have their share of problems, too.
That is, people who own a property can live their whole life of it without single contribution to the society. They might own the property due to a sizeable contribution they made early on but lately a lot of people simply got lucky to be at the right place at the right time due to policies that favoured them or events that happen outside of their control or simply inherited the property.
Those people are taking large portion of the output of the productive people and because of the regulations and market dynamics their wealth doesn't come down but even keeps climbing.
Normally this would be reserved for the elites and can be tolerable and maybe even desirable but when you have that elite class large as today, the resources they take out of productive people gets very significant.
For example, if someone who happened to own a shitty house in an area where a lot of people suddenly start come to work, they can extract much of the productive output of the companies and people there simply because its not feasible to build new housing due to regulations.
When a company happens to solve the navigation needs of the world from SV, they happen to pay very significant chuck of their money to landlords in SV. The people who solved the worlds navigation needs might appear to be compensated handsomely actually don't keep the money for long, they transfer significant amount of it to landlords.
Then you end up with something like 2 people who solved the navigation, 5 people who produced and serviced the consumption needs but 10 people compete for the output of these 5 people since 3 people did nothing but just got richer by keeping owning a property.
Actually, these 3 people don't have to be property owners only, it can be anything that brings enough income for life without any further input to the society. Ideally, this wouldn't cause a problem because ideally they should have been living the good life for some huge contribution they made early on but due unfair market situation they ended up like lottery winners.
There is a big trick, they are robbing you, but knowing how is half the battle. As you say regulations push out competition, that is one factor; along with government spending which will always flow to connected interests; lastly a monetary system where the money can only exist when its loaned into existence by a private corporation, the Fed.
Each of these have their respective mythos of justification, and an underlying purpose. Regulation is to protect the public despite the fact that the regulations only come after working conditions have already improved, and are passed after the well connected corporate interests have gained some advantage that would be difficult for smaller businesses to replicate. Government spending is sold as defending citizens from ner-do-wells foreign and domestic, or more modernly for providing for the downtrodden, whereas the vast majority of money flows into the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industry, the banks and other well connected interests. The existence of a private organization responsible for the creation of our money is sold as a way to keep prices stable, when the reality is it gives them dominion over the wealth of the population, by manipulating interest rates and banking regulations they can chronically steal the wealth out of the paper you work for.
>people who own a property can live their whole life of it without single contribution
is a big part of why economic growth is slow in the UK these days whereas in the 1800s it was the workshop of the world. The economy shifted from making stuff to getting a levy on asset prices, either housing or financial transactions.
IMHO the developed world will have to go through restructuring and bring back "makings stuff" home. The inflation is supposed to help with this, when enough architects are willing to pay high enough for cheese maybe some of the architects will get into making cheese.
Overall, I think the adjustment will be good for everybody. Although specialisation in a global trade can be beneficial, it can't be expected that the people of one country will work in sweatshops forever and others will have the good life simply because of their location. Eventually, things should stabilize in a more meritocratic world. A person baking bread in the Philipines shouldn't be having drastically shittier life quality than a person person baking bread in London and people baking bread in general should't have much shittier lives than people who inherited a house or works in finance. Of course, the value of contribution can be different and its all determined on the free market but it shouldn't be priced based on structural issues.
> failed green policy
What is a failed green policy? Sounds like a soundbite.
and the weather was unusally warm. If it had been a bad winter, i doubt people will be so willing.
> haven't really reduced out CO2 emissions
nobody wants to pay the costs (neither collectively, nor privately) to do this. It's the fundamental reason why climate policy doesn't work. It has to be based on economics, and technological improvement - these takes quite a while methinks.
> It has to be based on economics, and technological improvement - these takes quite a while methinks.
Technology does keep improving. What's lacking is the political will, and that's probably because of vested economic interests.
In the UK we have Drax power plant in Yorkshire burning wood pellets shipped from North American forests and calling it green. I don't think it has much effect on overall global energy prices.
All energy prices are global. It's a global market.
> Energy prices are higher
The war reduced gas supply in Europe by closing pipelines and removing Russia from the supply market. Supply goes down, price goes up.
It is my opinion that this impact on supply is the biggest, almost sole, driver of energy prices over the last 2 years.
Can you explain how burning trees has caused high energy prices in a way that is distinct from the effect of the war?
Anti-Nuclear has been the policy in Germany for decades. The UK has been investing massively in Wind for decades. The prices only went up after the war in 2021.
I dont have a great read on why you are so committed to arguing that the green energy policy has not failed; considering we certainly agree divesting from nuclear was the wrong choice, that the energy wouldnt fit the connotation of green energy, and that we probably (I assume) agree that cheap energy is a critical aspect of developed nations, I am having trouble understanding where you are coming from.
In mainland Europe they don’t have a lot of wood to burn so gas from the Russian sphere of influence was a cheap solution that became an addiction that blew up in many peoples’ faces – even us in the north, due to the home energy markets being tied to natural gas
FWIW I basically agree with you. In the UK most people are reliant on natgas piped to the home for heating and hot water. It's a dense country and we have better options now.
You will pay £11,911,250 in stamp duty though.
Taxes are not the reason for the massive price increases. Indeed, you point out high energy prices, which were met with suspension of energy taxes in many European countries, with little effect. VAT was slashed for many sectors, still, prices went up.
If anything, taxes are too low. Many tax rates are at a historic low. European billionaires stole a trillion Euros from the population last year alone. Why people are always so enraged about the taxes that pay for every single public utility instead of the unlimited greed of the hyperwealthy who don't even know what to do with their money because the luxury wharfs are completely booked out and they already own two private jets?
Smoke and mirrors. They've managed to deflect the blame nicely, and we are dumb enough to believe that it is so. The same effect can be seen in the universal health care reactions in the US. Fascinating.
valuation of stocks growing higher is not stealing. Using hyperbole is not making your argument any more convincing.
Rent, rent, rent, rent…
The money we threw at the pandemic, like everyone else in the developed world, avoided an economic crash worse than 2008. It resulted in inflation so, among other causes. The high energy prices were temporary and caused by the war in Ukraine, green energy policiies had nothing to do with that (if you want to thank someone that would be Putin).
As a result, it's not entirely correct to say that tax rates haven't increased in Europe over the last 2 years.
When do you think history started?