andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2011-12-22 11:00 am

[identity profile] strawberryfrog.livejournal.com 2011-12-22 03:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Central government should be able to borrow money for projects that will break even or better in the long term. (and avoid doing it for other things). This is well known, or at least it used to be.

For quite a long time, there was incentive for the UK government(s) to not encourage house-building in London - increasing the number of houses available would have stopped or slowed the rise in prices, and this rise made people feel wealthier (and gave them an asset to borrow against) and thus made them feel that their government was doing a good job, since they never had it so good. The only problem with this plan is that it was unsustainable.
Edited 2011-12-22 15:45 (UTC)

[identity profile] camies.livejournal.com 2011-12-22 10:29 pm (UTC)(link)
the only problem with this plan is that it was stupid and unsustainable. What else is there, that most people need to buy, where prices going up is generally thought to be a Good Thing? I do not understand this. Yes, they would get more money if they sold, but they'll probably need to buy another one.