It's not just second hand spares that are rising in price..Recently I have had to buy a range of consumables such as blasting beads, paint, lacquer, lathe tool tips etc. and they have all gone up substantially since the last time I purchased them. The cost of new parts for engine, gearbox and magneto and dynamo overhauls have also risen along with the price of services such as moulding and rebores...
Whoever works out the 'official' rate of inflation deserves a prize in the 'fantasy' category...
Sadly, it means I also have to join in and increase my prices as well...Low inflation..??...Yeh, right ....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

I'm in the same boat too, shame customers don't want to pay any extra either, so you just have to take it on the chin, I regularly spend over £100 on consumables that I normally don't charge out and every time I order them the price has increased, so I guess I'll have to start charging for the odd nuts or bolts or the few pumps of grease! I'd love to know what planet the government are on when they say that inflation is running at about 2 percent.

email (option): davmax@ntlworld.com

Yes, got to agree and it isnt just the 'special' stuff you are refering to. My other half, for the same regular shopping list, reckons we are shelling out a good 10% more than we were less than two years ago. Less money left for the 'special' stuff :-( !

email (option): cruiserchooser@hotmail.co.uk

It's some time since I put up any of my prices, including my labour rates..However, recently I have spent £100 replacing 1 tap and one die..£120 on lathe tips..£70 on blasting beads..£60 on degreasing fluids..£90 on paints and thinners etc. etc...I don't even like thinking about it!..It's not possible to continue 'taking it on the chin' as that effectively means a growing wage cut. A good example is magneto and dynamo overhauls..My margin is now so low that if I don't increase the price they will no longer be worth doing....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

It's the only way the Keynesean nanny state can operate. Say you work from age 20 to age 65 and then retire. The dollar (pound, euro) you paid in at 20 is worth four or five times the dollar you get at 65. The numbers of what you paid in are sort of comparable to the numbers of what you get out, but the value of what you get out is a lot less. Most people don't make the comparison and say, well, I paid in a total of X, if I live my regular life expectancy I'll get out about X, so it's OK. They don't factor in inflation.

Similarly, the government floats 10 year bonds at, say, 4% but when it comes time for it to pay, 10 years later, it pays back with money that's worth 8, 10 or 15% less than the money it borrowed was worth so, in effect, you have "negative" bond rates, i.e., the interest rate you get on a bond is so low that, when you factor in inflation, you are paying the government to borrow your money.

Inflation is a central strategy of all Keynesean economies. Keynes himself said so. Here in the US there was effectively no inflation at all for the first 130 years of the nation - until 1913, when the central bank ("Federal Reserve") was organized with the mandate to keep inflation in check. Sorry joke: our money lost 95% of its value in the 100 years since. 130 years of no inflation followed by 95% devaluation because of inflation. As our Supreme Court said last week in one of the most anticipated decisions, no one can protect the people from the political decisions they make. (I paraphrase a little bit.) Think about that, the Chief Judge of the US is telling us that we must simply suffer the consequences for voting as stupidly as we do - there is no one to save us from our voting sins. Or, as a famous economist said, the road to serfdom is paved with good intentions. (Again, paraphrase.)

Inflation/socialism/Keyneseanism/nanny state are all slightly more complicated examples of the old frog story. If you toss a frog into a pot of hot water he'll jump out immediately. But if you put him in a pot of cold water and then turn on low heat, he'll stay there until he boils to death. The nanny state becomes more and more pervasive and the amount of government control (or taxes or regulation or whatever you have) of today becomes the floor, only to be increased next year, which in turn becomes the floor, to be increased the following year, etc. Everybody knew or suspected that communism was doomed: it was the pot of hot water. Almost nobody recognizes that Keyneseanism/socialism is the pot of cold water with the heat turned on low. Thankfully I am old enought that I will probably die of natural causes before I boil to death. No such hope for our children and grandchildren. Greece is a current example but almost all other countries are following, some more quickly than others.

email (option): jonny.rudge@verizon.net

I think the clue is that in this current recession the people that caused it still have as much as they did before while we pay for it...Personally I haven't voted for years..I believe that if you want real change it is best not to perpetuate the system by voting for it. At the moment it is (laughably) suggested we have a representative democracy and both the system and the myth are maintained by voters supporting it...I'm always surprised that the majority of people believe the following two things..1)We live in a free society..2)Our 'leaders' are operating in our best interests..
The preservation in the majority of peoples minds of these two ideas, in the face of a reality that is so obviously to the contrary, must be the Governments greatest achievement...
The problem I guess is coming up with a better alternative..As Churchill said..'Democracy is the worst form of Government..apart from all the other forms of Government that have been tried from time to time'...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

Ian, completely agree with that.

We have "leaders" that put out one clear message, cheat well enough & for long enough & you should be able to afford the fine easily if your caught, but don't forget to wear a suit & keep a straight face while doing it.

Ian, I have to disagree at least a little with most of what you say. The people who caused the recession are (a) those who lived on borrowings beyond their ability to pay, and that's most everyone and most governments; and (b) those who think or hope that the government can give them money or benefits which they have not earned and, again, that's almost everyone.

As to "a", it never ceases to amaze me that people who know full well that increased "leverage", i.e., borrowing, means increased risk are caught by surprise when the increased risk becomes reality.

As to "b", the world is full of examples of people who produce $X value but expect to get wages and benefits of $X+Y value, i.e., they expect to be paid more than what they produce. Where do they think the rest is going to come from? I remember the British coal fights of the '70s and in particular one specific mine which was making a LOSS of something like 9 million pounds a month for several years. The miners, fully aware of the losses, insisted that the operation must not be closed down because they needed their jobs - and, of course, they could not be bothered with getting other, more productive jobs. What absurdity. In Thatcher's words, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

I also have to disagree with your voting habit. The state and society will continue even if you do not vote. If you want change you not only need to vote but you should be getting involved in organizing and even in your local politics. Otherwise, who do you think is going to effectuate change, the entrenched politicians and bureaucrats who benefit from the present system?

Finally, remember that "the preservation . . . of these ideas" comes early. What does every pupil and student have in common with every other pupil and student? They are all taught by unionized government employees who, by virtue of their position and status, are all leaning left, and that's how they teach. Why does the US have institutions of post-secondary learning that the whole world prefers to their own? It's the only developed country in which most colleges and universities are private institutions, not taught by government employees. Even "public" colleges have to be better because they have to compete with the private ones. In all fields it's competition that improves the stock, not complacency. (Unfortunately, our own kids don't always benefit from this because the damage is already done in the brainwashing they receive in the primary and secondary schools.)

email (option): jonny.rudge@verizon.net

The number of people NOT voting is still observed & is a good measure of the level of apathy, its somethiing that if everyone did would at the very least, be extremely funny.

i think putting extra money into the economy devalues the money therefore your pound buys less

email (option): roger.beck@node6.com

If say, 90% of the people didn't vote it would no longer be a sustainable position for politicians to argue that the system was representative or that they had a mandate from the population to enact laws or initiate policy..and that is why they are so concerned about falling voter numbers...
As a mandate from the people is a cornerstone of all 'democracies' if that situation came to pass there would have to be a fundamental change of the system as it would no longer be credible...or alternatively there would have to be a change in the way politicians act to reacquire your vote and thus preserve the system..
On the assumption that politicians are not ready to abandon democracy yet the second course of action would be inevitable.
To achieve the reacquisition of your vote under the existing system it would also be inevitable, in my opinion, that the actions of politicians would have to come more into alignment with the wishes and interests of the people...So I do think a valid course of action for change is to withold your vote...It is your vote that enables politicians, and if you do vote, who else are you voting for but 'entrenched politicians and beaurocrats'?.
As a real alternative you could vote for the extreme right or the extreme left...both of those groups would initiate change if they came to power, though they might not be the changes you had in mind and by thier nature they would ultimately be even less accountable..I believe the quickest and simplest method of changing the actions of the politicians is a direct threat to the validity of the system that keeps them in place...Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com

You would never get 90% abstention - it's simply unrealistic and no historic example exists - but even if you did, there is no requirement of a "quorum" in a general election. If only the politician's friends, relatives and clients vote the system (and the politician) will simply shrug shoulders and say, well, I can't make the rest come to the polls but I got the majority of those who voted and therefore I'm elected. Politicians, politics and governments don't change just because they're "embarrassed" by low turnout. It's a fantasy. By not voting you are simply handing them a blank check to do whatever they please without taking your preferences into consideration.

BTW, even though you'll never get 90% to stay away, you can get more than 100% to vote. The most rigged election in the Guiness Book of World Records lists an election in which there were 15,000 registered voters but the winner got 240,000 votes! As we say in my neighborhood, vote early and vote often.

email (option): jonny.rudge@verizon.net

90% percent abstention was a purely arbritary suggestion..In reality if the vote falls near or below 50% (which is near where it is) the system is in trouble. At these levels in the UK the question of the validity of the mandate IS raised...and if it fell further there would be problems. As I stated previously, this is why politicians are worried about falling voter numbers..why else would it worry them?
As both the major parties have moved to the centerground in the last few years voting for either produces broadly the same result and merely maintains the status quo..There is no logic in voting for parties that don't do what you want and don't behave differently and it is the realisation of that fact that has lead to a falling turnout and a general dissatisfaction with the political system.
I would suggest that blindly voting for parties that are broadly similar and have demonstrated over time that they don't really operate in your interest, only in your name, is not a mechanism for change...far from it. You merely validate the existing sytem with your vote...
As revolution is unlikely, changing the system from within nearly impossible and the establishment of alternative parties from scratch is both a long term solution and very difficult, it seems to me that the only way to challenge a system that is based on and derives its validity from the 'mandate of the people' is to remove that mandate. For a 'democratic' party to say they have 40% of 40% of the vote is not, in fact, a position from which they can argue they have a mandate from the population..that would plainly not be the case and therefore their 'right to govern' would be thrown into question, as without the mandate they have no more right to govern than you or I....Ian

email (option): ian@wright52.plus.com