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

On 15/10/2014 11:53, news wrote:

We have a recently built shopping centre which is mostly open - some has a thin plastic roof which keeps rain off but the wind whips through. The heat pouring out of open shop doors is beyond belief. You can feel overheated walking past the shops even in the middle of winter.
Even more ludicrous when you think how many shops try to flog at least some of their wares on the basis of energy saving.
Perhaps every shop should have to display their recent energy usage?
--
Rod

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
polygonum wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Wright wrote:

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 ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:52:54 +0100, Andy Burns

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Build a couple more nukes then who cares?
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15/10/14 20:02, bert wrote:

That too...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fallacy. It might boost the paper economy but it makes us poorer in real terms.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope.

It helps the real economy by providing more jobs.

Bullshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/10/2014 04:41, Bill Wright wrote:

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/10/2014 10:18, Richard Tobin wrote:

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.
--
Colin Bignell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To me it suggests either:
1) Wastage (and eating too much falls in the category);
or
2) It may be unplanned in the spur of the moment, but if the person did not buy it there and then, they would have planned to buy it or something else in the very near future (thinking food items) - so not really "unplanned".
I went into Homebase the other day for a pack of screws (well, I was passing) and bought one LED lamp to test. This was an extra purchase over what I went in for, but it was not unplanned as such as I had been perusing LED HUT, Amazon and other places for exactly that form factor.
So it makes me wonder who that would have been recorded if I had been collared for a survey?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<"insert my surname here> wrote:

Yes.

Those arent the places being discussed, the small shops which leave their doors open to encourage impulse buying.
Its less clear what percentage of THEIR sales are impulse buying.

See above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:18:54 AM UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gobbledegook.

Its got nothing to do with happiness, everything to do with whether the buys produce more jobs etc. Of course they do.

Of course it is when those with surplus wealth provide jobs for those who would otherwise not have a job.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/10/2014 12:10, Richard Tobin wrote:

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.
--
Colin Bignell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Certainly.

Unlikely with impulse buys. The money spent on those is more likely to just be saved if it isnt spent on the impulse buy.

Duh.

More gobbledegook.

Not just possible, that is an absolute certainty.

Nope, there is nowhere else it can go unless the impulse buy is for something sold by someone who has nothing useful to do with their time and who is just selling stuff like that as a hobby to fill in the time and who just adds the cash they receive from the impulse buy to their already substantial savings in the bank etc.
Sure, some small shops are like that, but its only a subset of the small shops being discussed.

It isnt about happyness, its about jobs.
And most are happier with a job than without one anyway.

Its unlikely that a third of supermarket purchases are that.
But those arent the shops being discussed, those that believe that they get more impulse buys when they leave their door open. Supermarkets mostly have automatic doors or no doors at all when they open onto malls etc.

That is certainly true of the sort of mindless shopaholics.
But those do provide jobs for those that sell them stuff.

Yes, that does happen when you see something that you didn’t realise would be useful until you saw it.
I've actually done that with supermarkets, seen a new thing on the shelves, decided to try it, found I like it a lot and choose to buy it more often.
In fact they they stopped selling that item, presumably because not enough people liked it, so I started making my own, and its much better than the one I bought in the supermarket.
In this case chicken breasts with various stuffings wrapped in prosciutto, cooked in the oven.

See above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes

It never was. That was just a much more important component than it is now.

Trouble is that there isnt one.
Yes, its stupid to be ignoring the amount of effort that goes into doing stuff around the home, particularly with food preparation when that competes with having much more of the food preparation done in factorys to minimise the amount of effort required in the home, but the problem is that it is essentially impossible to measure that other stuff so it can't be included in some national total figure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.