44% goes to banks or finance organisations to supposedly fund social housing when these entities have absolutely no problem wth accessing capital in other ways. They have absolutely no requirement for funds raised in this way.
If social housing is to be let out at below market price then there’s a subsidy there. So, someone, somewhere along the way, has to provide the subsidy.
What is it about lower than market price that Spud cannot grasp?
“What is it about lower than market price that Spud cannot grasp?”
I think it’s the “market” part. We have seen before (including very recently at the Adam Smit Institute blog) how some leftists just refuse to understand how markets allow demand and supply to meet
It’s classic communist stuff. There’s no need for any of it to make sense, just for there to be a phrase which provides a figleaf .
“You don’t need that interest money I agreed to pay you on that loan. You can access capital other ways. So I’m not going to pay it.”
And then wonders why the bank forecloses.
@ M
In the Murphyverse, the bank doesn’t need to foreclose because it can simply write off the loan on the Murphy-mansion and remain solvent by creating money through double-entry accounting.
What is it about lower than market price that Spud cannot grasp?
He can’t grasp anything. I am not sure how he manages to open his front door.
He can certainly type though. That drivel about non-linear thinking was 2,600 words long.
Because we hide the welfare subsidy that is under market priced state and social housing.
Else the true welfare bill would be a good £50bn or so higher than it actually is declared at.
Which might upset the few net tax payers. No need to rub their noses in the level or parasitism they are supporting.