FuckyWucky [none/use name]

How about banning large corps from issuing shares abroad? Britain is too financialized. There is no need to pump more people’s money into shares.

In her Mansion House speech to City leaders, Rachel Reeves is expected to consider cutting tax breaks for people parking their savings in cash ISAs, in a bid to encourage more investment in stocks and shares.

People parking their savings in stocks doesn’t increase investments in real sector. In long run without a Government sector, increases in private profits comes from private investment financed by bank loans created from nothing (inside money).

That applies to new equity (shares) as well, the money to buy newly issued shares (IPO) must come from retained earnings (which come from previous investments or govt deficit and is limited in amount), or bank money creation (which is constrained by bank’s willingness to lend).

Funny how the land of Keynesian economics is now implementing the most braindead monetarist economic policies. Acting as if shuffling numbers around does anything.

Edit: I believe the hope is that this will inflate the prices of shares, which can then be used as collateral to get loans for cheap from private banks. But then that money is unlikely to be used for real investment instead just speculation.

Central government finances itself. It doesn’t need tax revenue or such payments from the rich.

Close the loophole.

For flagship they should’ve gone with a flagship cpu. Ik it’s not that different, but there is no reason.

I think uncertainty of employment is a huge issue. Enact a right to employment law.

One off transfers aren’t enough, there has to be consistent income stream. The hours of the work offered under this law must be flexible.

Of course, none of that is going to happen if the Government has a neoliberal mindset.

Farage is indistinguishable from current “Labour” Government in that they both support austerity. Which leftist is he trying to woo. He will kick out all the immigrants, then what? Will life improve? No in fact it’ll be worse.

To pay for it, Farage is promising to end the government’s commitment to net zero, scrap diversity and inclusion schemes and stop housing asylum seekers in hotels or houses of multiple occupancy. Economists said his working was riddled with errors, such as including private sector investment as part of his calculation for how much he could save by ending environmental spending.

Again, why should he “pay for” tax cuts? Does he fear being ousted like Truss even if he’s elected?

“Reform’s economic plan means either an explosion in borrowing, pushing up mortgage rates or swingeing cuts in public services like the NHS,” Ashworth said. “Given this is terrain Labour want to fight an election on, Reform have just walked into a trap and Labour strategists will be rubbing their hands with glee.’

Yes blow up the borrowing. As for mortgage rates, build public housing.

Of course, none of them are going to do anything. Not even the Greens or SNP or whatever, they are all afraid of the market gods.

otp.landian.vip

Fiscal deficits are not completely discretionary, there are automatic stablizers and balances of private and foreign sectors. And no, she doesnt have to raise taxes or cut spending, she can let the deficit be wherever it is.

if you want iptorrents invite message me, it may have what you are looking for.

Why is private sector doing nuclear energy? It’ll take large amounts of subsidies anyway since the private sector doesn’t do anything if they don’t forsee profits. Might as well have it in the public sector which doesn’t have to worry about monetary profits.

I don’t think much is happening in UK with regards to anything productive like wind or nuclear so long as the Government doesn’t do stuff. Starmer is servile to finance capital interests. He is more interested in seeing the line go up.

Yep. The bump has always been large but I meant the arrangement itself.

Xiaomi 15 Ultra

Xiaomi 13 Ultra

New battery tech with that 6000mah.

I agree with the comments though, camera does look ugly.

hostingby.design and seedhost.eu have it, more expensive though

1. Yes its just a remote server that you can torrent on

2. Yes you get SFTP and shell (non-root/root depending on which provider) access

3. Yes, you can with Deluge, rTorrent etc which run on seedboxes

4. Depends on the provider, some seedbox providers don’t support public trackers (or cap upload speeds)

5. Depends on the provider, major ones like seedhost or ultraseedbox don’t. And yes they can see what you transfer, it’s a shared linux server.

6. No, you need root access to run torrents over a VPN, not available on shared seedboxes but you can do it on dedicated servers/seedboxes.

7. I’ve tried seedhost, ultraseedbox, whatbox.ca, hostingby.design. all pretty good.

India assassinated someone in Canada, is India going to occupy Canada soon? UK and Russia are both nuclear states btw.

U.K. is subservient to U.S., has been since WW2, and likely will be as long as the U.S. exists . The article specifically mentions Russia but only links to another article saying Trump ‘wants’ Greenland. Mentioning Russia and China is a great way to ignore the real puppeteer.

UK and Ukraine does sound the same, yeah.

I don’t care about ‘threats’ from Russia or China, nothing more than new Red Scare propaganda. So, that point can be thrown in the trash rubbish bin.

Joining the customs union would boost trade by eliminating most taxes on imports and exports with EU member states. It would place Britain behind a European tariff wall with the rest of the world. It would help to align rules which, as Sir Ed pointed out, mean that a UK air cargo company currently has to service its planes in the US rather than in Europe. And it would reduce some of the red tape created by Britain’s own post-Brexit regulations.

What will EU even import from the UK? Does it even want British goods? Is there even enough demand backed by purchasing power in the EU countries given their own economic stagnation? Relying on exports as a source of demand is a terrible idea, especially when the Government isn’t willing to step in if and when there are any shocks.

The economic reasons are more valid, I think more open trade between EU and UK would be good. But it’s not going to fix U.K’s problems in any way, that requires Government to do stuff and increase spending, which it isn’t going to do.

relying on capitalist ‘animal spirits’ has always worked everywhere surely. you can offer them free money, zero taxes they won’t invest unless they see profits.

Daily Mail is a rag what else is new? If Starmer had any good economic policies (he is the Prime Minister, not a candidate), the public would like him regardless of what right wing “press” says.

How can you improve the economy when no one has enough purchasing power?

Millions of Brits are unemployed or underemployed. Put them to work first.

First hire health workers, first produce and import medical equipment. “Anything we can actually do, we can afford.” and all that.

EU is willing to fuck over its own members who they consider to be ‘periphery’ (PIIGS) or having trade deficits (even though the trade deficits were keeping surplus countries like Germany alive). I think it’s ultimately a good thing U.K. left that neoliberal union. Unfortunately, U.K. politics is broken and none of the parties, including Reform are willing to go beyond neoliberalism.

Now that Germany doesn’t have many markets to export to, it is suffering too.