Eoin Clarke and logic

There are nearly 4 million families who cannot afford to own a home in the UK that are forced to rent privately. Private rents are more than double the cost of social renting. This means that each family who cannot afford to  buy a home faces a £4,000 a year de facto fine from the state as they are forced to pay £8,100 private rental costs. There is a moral duty upon the state to provide more social housing for these people to halt their economic exploitation.
Absence of a subsidy is a fine?

13 thoughts on “Eoin Clarke and logic”

  1. It’s the way these guys think, in the same way that Ritchie thinks that tax not taken from an ISA is government spending.

  2. Fits in well with government spending being renamed as investment and reducing taxes as taking money out of the economy. Clarke is bang in the centre of left-wing economic,”thinking”.

  3. Ahhh Tim, how’s France y’old UKIPPER?

    It seems an age since we chatted last…

    June 26th In fact.

    I attach the readers a link of our conversation. When you are gentlemanly enough to admit you were wrong about this then it would add some veracity to your pronouncements..

    But you wont will you? Ya got tanked on that occasion and I think your readers deserve to see that your current behavior is largely borne out of sour grapes (enjoy the link worstall readers)


    Tim adds: At last, one thing we agree upon. I do agree that people should follow that link. Eoin does the great trick of trying to refute his own figures.

    BTW, it’s Portugal….

  4. The differential between council house prices and private rental prices is not useful, but it is reasonable to argue that when the State forces up private rental prices, which it does by a suite of policies- not least land use restrictions- that renters are being penalised. It’s all a question of where you set the datum.

    It’s a Corn Laws argument; the Corn Laws artificially inflated the price of bread above market level. “Fine” might be the wrong word, but certainly bread purchasers were being penalised or economically harmed or some such term.

    The answer of course is not a dole of State bread, but the abolition of the Corn Laws. I see today that the Coalition are making a tentative step to reduce the Land Laws, which if history is any guide will sadly be defeated by those types of “Conservatives” who turn into rabid communists when their house price/view/preservation of their village environment are under threat.

  5. Eoin (#4), I followed that link.

    Tim used WHO and OECD data, where all countries are compared on the same, standardised, basis.

    Eoin, you used data derived from national accounts, which are not copmarable because they are not calculated on the same basis.

    Which do we think makes the more valuable comparison?

  6. Richard,

    Office of Budget Responsibility have Fiscal Sustainability reports on their website…

    Make your Sunday by having a peek – They show OECD figures for the UK.

    Guessy what? They make Monsieur Worstall look even more Worse off 🙂

    Now until he is gentlemanly enough to engage intellectually, I see no reason to bore myself with his personality trivia.

    And your good self for that matter, did not respond to my reply to your own comment.

    Are the both of you vacuous?

  7. Eoin, I tried – but you seem to have stopped people from posting unless they’ve got a Google account (learning comment management from Murphy?), and I really can’t be bothered remembering another password.

  8. And again, surely the OECD and WHO websites are a better source of comparable statistics than a particular country’s data.

  9. Richard,

    Well done! You have joined an elite club of humans who ignore national statistics..

    No small feat good sir!

  10. Don’t be a silly billy.

    We use national statistics when looking at how one nation changes over time. But each nation does its statistics on a different basis, to suit its own situation. So when comparing different nations we use international statistics (where they are available), because with them each country is (or at least should be) looked at on the same basis. That makes them more comparable, which is what we are trying to do.

    Did I really have to explain that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *