OT If the EU want to do something useful.......rather than pick on vacuum cleaners

[Nightjar]

[Tim Watts]

On 15/10/14 22:51, "Nightjar

[Nightjar]

[Bill Wright]

Fallacy. It might boost the paper economy but it makes us poorer in real terms.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Walk, as I used to, along the edges of the flat roof of any hospital or school or office block. You can hold out your hand and feel the heat rising from the open windows below. But on flats you don't get that effect.

Bill

[Andy Burns]

Still pretty true that in many local-government controlled buildings, the heating comes on based on the calendar, rather than the temperature, and the way to regulate room temperature is to open the windows, turning off the rads doesn't help when much when there's a large, unlagged, hot pipe running round the perimeter of the room ...

[Tim Watts]

On 15/10/14 23:54, "Nightjar

[damduck-egg]

A mates dad had a flat in a small council owned block. This was equipped with underfloor heating which came on about October and ran till sometime in Spring. There was no way of controlling it by the occupants and on some days many of the flats had windows open to keep cool even in December. He later bought the flat under the Right to buy but I lost touch around then, I wonder how the bill was then sorted, If I had bought the place I wouldn't want to pay for warming up the pigeons outside.

G.Harman

[Nightjar]

What do you consider to be 'real terms', if not increased demand, higher growth and less unemployment?

[Richard Tobin]

The money spent on impulse buys can only possibly enough to pay for impulse buys, so unless the impulse buys themselves actually generate additional happiness the boost to the economy is worthless.

It's possible that they also redistribute wealth somewhat, though I can't see any reason to suppose it would be in a desirable direction.

-- Richard

[Nightjar]

Spending increases demand, which leads to improved growth and less unemployment. Around one third of all purchases in supermarkets is unplanned, which suggests that impulse buying is a very important part of the economy.

[Tim Watts]

On 16/10/14 10:41, "Nightjar

[Richard Tobin]

Possibly. Or possibly it just results in less being spent on other things.

And the increased demand is for exactly the things that are bought. The resulting wages get spent on average, on those very things - because that's how much extra money is available.

Now it's possible that it shuffles money around so that more of other things is bought, but you'd need some evidence for that.

The question is whether that part of the economy is actally making anyone happier. If it's just a lot of extra stuff that no-one really wanted, it isn't. And you have to set against it the possibility that people buy less of things that *would* actually make them happier.

In short: does buying more things we didn't previously want result in us having more of the things we really do want? If so, why?

-- Richard

[spuorgelgoog]

If people buy things on impulse they can't afford they resort to credit to pay it off.

Importers of tat and the owners of coffee shops and payday loan companies might benefit, but most people (and I suspect the economy overall) might be improved if they spent rather less on impulse.

Owain

[bert]

That's a whole different ballgame as politicians and many commentators do not understand the meaning of GDP variously quoting as "wealth" and "income". Even prostitution and rug dealing is now included in GDP. In the days when our economy was largely manufacturing based it was a reasonable measure of economic activity but personally I think it has passed its sell by date and its about time economists came up with a new idea.

[Nightjar]

It is the total amount being spent that is important, not what it is being spent on. If people are buying one thing instead of another, rather than as well as it, that is not an increase in spending.

Only if you are a sociologist. Economists are interested in whether people are buying non-essentials, as that implies a greater level of disposable income and hence a healthier economy. Whether or not they are happier as a result is only relevant to the economy if it results in even more spending.

[Nightjar]

On 16/10/2014 07:47, Tim Watts wrote: ..

All I was doing was playing devil's advocate :-)

[F]

Thought this for a long time. Sheer madness to have doors open all year round with heating running in cold weather and cooling running in warm weather.

Forget footfall, all commercial premises should have to have automatic door closers that work.

[polygonum]

Bloody ridiculous idea. Where I work is definitely commercial premises. I can't think of a single reason for us to have an automatic door closer. The door, except when people are actually passing in or out of the building, is always closed. We open and close it ourselves.

[F]

Then there would be no inconvenience.

Commercial premises with heating or cooling running and doors which are deliberately left open should not be acceptable.