benjit14.bsky.social
93 posts
12 followers
29 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Why doesn't the US offer to rescind its NATO membership and leave Europe in return for Russia leaving Ukraine? Why would anyone object?
comment in response to
post
Why not help Ukraine defeat Russia? We haven't tried that yet and it would work out a lot less expensive.
comment in response to
post
No, that's not the only way.
comment in response to
post
As Europe has 10x nominal/5x PPP Russia's economy, then of course Ukraine can win should we choose to give them the means to do so. Its silly to say otherwise.
comment in response to
post
Nope. South Korea has not given any lethal aid to Ukraine. So fuck you.
comment in response to
post
By changing poor tax choices, rents fall by an average 2/3rds overnight and a huge deadweight is taken off our economy. Why not discuss this?
comment in response to
post
No help from South Korea.
comment in response to
post
First good news for many months.
comment in response to
post
Poor tax choices shrink GDP and bakes in excessive inequalities, resulting in our housing crisis and an economy tilted in favour of London/SE. Why cant society discuss addressing root causes instead of arguing about which poor mitigation is best?
comment in response to
post
When poor mitigations are the only policies on the table, what can be achieved is limited at the best of times.
comment in response to
post
and flies in the face of all those who believe in sovereignty and the rule of law. And it adds insult to the countless injuries suffered by the brave Ukrainian people.
comment in response to
post
Exactly. If the US caused the war, the its responsible to oust Russia from Ukraine and pay the latter billions in damages. Why hasnt MAGA/Trump been asked this?
comment in response to
post
All MPs need to watch this interview with Former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Richard Shirreff ASAP
www.youtube.com/watch?v=907P...
comment in response to
post
2 Given the fact we are planning to increase our defense budgets by this amount anyway, this isn't as outlandish as it sounds.
comment in response to
post
1 To match Russian spending on the war, the West would need to increase the level of aid given from 0.1% gdp to 0.5%gdp. Without the US, Europe would need to up that to 1%.
comment in response to
post
It can't win on the 0.1% gdp aid it gets from the West. That's 2% of Russia's GDP. Russia is spending >10% on this war. That's why Ukraine never had a chance. The West never wanted Russia to lose. It's a cruel, cynical policy. Our politicians were not held to account.
comment in response to
post
If that's the case, then the US is morally responsible for ousting Russia from Ukraine and paying Ukraine for all the damages.
comment in response to
post
The aid the West gives Ukraine is 0.1% gdp. That's only enough for Russia not to lose. It is the equivalent of 2% of Russian gdp. Russia now spends 8% on its military, Given that it is always going to win a war of attrition against Ukraine. Ukraine losing is a choice the collective West made in 2022
comment in response to
post
So the US caused the war then?
comment in response to
post
Exactly this. Its far, far less expensive in the long run.
comment in response to
post
The US is using Russian violence so it can pillage Ukraine.
comment in response to
post
The US is using Russian violence to pillage Ukraine for itself.
comment in response to
post
Citizens in Europe need to start sabotaging anything related to Musk. Space X and Tesla.
comment in response to
post
Council Tax/Poll Tax is the fairest, most efficient way to fund local government, so long as there is also a national tax on location values. Used to fund a UBI, it would more than cover people's Council/Poll Tax bills.
comment in response to
post
The cause of misallocation and unaffordability are the same. The unjust(unequal) distribution of the returns to land among society, reflected in poor tax choices (which also put a huge deadweight on our economy). We all know this. Why can;t we even talk about it?
comment in response to
post
The UK has a shortfall of 10 million cars compared to the US. French cities are just as unaffordable as UK cities, despite there being 7 million vacant properties. The UK's housing crisis is caused by the unjust distribution of the returns to land among society, not the planning system.
comment in response to
post
It didn't land anywhere. It was only promised, never given.
comment in response to
post
No justice, no peace. Far Left and Far Right unite to appease territorial wars of conquest. Corbyn, Farrage and Trump all on the same side. History repeating itself.
comment in response to
post
Pity that like Israel, Palastinians are pro-Russia. Ukrainians are our friends. Palastinians, not so much.
comment in response to
post
Ukraine has the skill, the knowledge, the men and the will. It's cheaper to just give them the tools and let them finish the job.
comment in response to
post
0.1%gdp aid was only ever a policy for Russia must not lose. And now comes the bill. If the West has fully backed Ukraine from day1, Russia would have lost in 2023. It's not too late to change to Ukraine must win. But that requires leaders. Something the West hasnt had in decades.
comment in response to
post
It was much worse in 1939, yet we still spent 45% gdp to defeat the likes of Putin. We thought 0.1% in aid to Ukraine was sufficient. Now we'll pay the full price.
comment in response to
post
Misallocation and unaffordablabilty are both symptoms of the unjust distribution of the returns to land among society. Just say it Josh and you'll feel a lot better.
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately the half of America that is still good is going to get tarred with the rest. I hope you all realise it's not aimed at you.
comment in response to
post
By impose does he mean the US fighting along side the Russians? Someone should ask him.
comment in response to
post
In 2022, I said that the pathetic 0.1%gdp in aid we and the West were giving to Ukraine was a policy of Russia must not lose. The cost of which would be 2% increases in defense spending in perpetuity. It's not to late to change this idiotic policy now the US has abdicated.
comment in response to
post
In WW2 the UK spent 45% of our GDP to defeat the likes of Putin. In comparison, we along with the US, France and Germany have given Ukraine 0.1% in aid. Mostly old junk. The policy was always Russia must not lose. It's a choice. I would end the war by changing that into Ukraine must win and 1%gdp.
comment in response to
post
2 The lesson being it's the system overall that's important. Leave Council Tax alone. If we want the system to be fairer and more efficient, we need a national tax on location values. Paid out as a UBI and/or used to radically reduce/eliminate other national taxes, like VAT.
comment in response to
post
1 The Poll Tax is the fairest, most efficient way to fund local services. The mistake was to replace Domestic Rates without enacting a national tax on location values. Paid out as a UBI, it would have more than covered peoples Poll Tax bill.
comment in response to
post
It doesn't matter if any given single tax is regressive, it's the system overall that's important. The mistake when Domestic Rates were replaced wasn't the Poll Tax, but they didn't enact a national tax on location values. You can't have one without the other.
comment in response to
post
It always was. The Poll Tax was & is the fairest, most efficient way to fund local government. The mistake when Domestic Rates were scrapped, is they weren't replaced with the Poll Tax and a national tax on location values. Paid out as a UBI, it would more than covered people's Poll Tax liabilities.
comment in response to
post
Because they are worried about their jobs. A few have even been candid enough to tell me to my face. But as I said, it's easy to prove empirically who is correct about all this by comparing the efficacy of supply vs distribution policies on the problem.
comment in response to
post
Ukraine would be mad to agree to any of this until after the war has finished. Unless it intends renege.
comment in response to
post
2 * there are many economists who do not agree that housing is in fact a supply side issue.
comment in response to
post
1 So if we know only by counting houses, how many more do we need? Why is there some magic number? As I said, that entire body of research* is based on the assumption housing can only be a supply side issue. It's actually very easy to prove they are wrong. Empirically.
comment in response to
post
High houseprices(land values) can become our greatest asset. By changing poor tax choices, we solve housing issues overnight and take a huge deadweight off our economy. Thus "Resolving" our two biggest problems.