Guest Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 22 minutes ago, David Guiza said: Following a tweet from Richard Osman (I think!) and listening to a podcast from Richard Herring with Tim Minchin I would be interested to hear whom people follow/take an interest in from the opposition side of their political sphere. Tim Minchin made a really interesting and, I think, important point about the damaging effect that social media can place on our opinion. We surround ourselves with people's opinion who we know and trust and end up, inadvertently, pigeon holing ourselves into the views that we have and will always hold as a result. I've followed Guide Fawkes for quite a while now, more out of interest than anything else, and it is interesting to see their take on the likes of Corbyn, Owen Jones etc and the liberal left as a whole. Most of what they post I find completely imbalanced and at times ridiculous, as expected, but I don't think I would ever stop following. Quite. Nobody dares open up their beliefs to critique. I don't excuse myself from that criticism either. 30 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: What is it then? Lets bring back Tax and Spend boom and bust, Genius idea. Again I have suggested a fair idea in that everyone pays more tax may 1-3p per pound, but most people don't like that idea. We can not sustain an economy based on debt, if we want to pay for a sustain good public services with a growing, aging population we have to options, we expect less of we pay more. We can not have it for free. Despite comrade Corbyn and his unicorns. So you don't want to tax and spend. Your alternative is to tax more so that we can...er....spend more? And you wonder why i don't take you seriously!
Carl the Llama Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 5 minutes ago, Innovindil said: These things take time. Just like balancing the books. Are we seriously still peddling the idea that the Tories have shown any kind of meaningful, effective control over migration? I suppose if you keep saying it until external influences happen to help knock figures down you'll be able to cry "see? see? I told you so!!!!" I bet that will make team Tory feel great. The only reason EU migration has dipped is because as an economy we've made ourselves a less attractive prospect and because as a populace we've projected a rather unwelcoming image, not because of any meaningful implementation of Tory border control policy. We've been told since Cameron was in office that migration was going to be curbed, but when there was nowhere near the drop in migration that they promised they turned around and blamed it on the EU even though 1. The non-EU figures barely shifted and 2. they were for some reason unwilling to rigorously enforce the 3-months to contribute or you're out rule.
Innovindil Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Are we seriously still peddling the idea that the Tories have shown any kind of meaningful, effective control over migration? I suppose if you keep saying it until external influences happen to help knock figures down you'll be able to cry "see? see? I told you so!!!!" I bet that will make team Tory feel great. The only reason EU migration has dipped is because as an economy we've made ourselves a less attractive prospect and because as a populace we've projected a rather unwelcoming image, not because of any meaningful implementation of Tory border control policy. We've been told since Cameron was in office that migration was going to be curbed, but when there was nowhere near the drop in migration that they promised they turned around and blamed it on the EU even though 1. The non-EU figures barely shifted and 2. they were for some reason unwilling to rigorously enforce the 3-months to contribute or you're out rule. I already said as much in my original post on the topic. I was just playing wind up the lefty after that, calm down mate. Whether the tories do anything significant to reduce immigration after we've left remains to be seen, admittedly, they did dick all about it before the referendum, but now there's a general outcry to lower it? Who knows.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 3 minutes ago, Innovindil said: I already said as much in my original post on the topic. I was just playing wind up the lefty after that, calm down mate. Whether the tories do anything significant to reduce immigration after we've left remains to be seen, admittedly, they did dick all about it before the referendum, but now there's a general outcry to lower it? Who knows. Not just before the referendum: Cameron promised migration cuts in 2010, the talk of a referendum started in 2013, presumably in part to win back the many fans he'd lost after spending 3 years of not meeting that promise.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 13 minutes ago, toddybad said: Quite. Nobody dares open up their beliefs to critique. I don't excuse myself from that criticism either. So you don't want to tax and spend. Your alternative is to tax more so that we can...er....spend more? And you wonder why i don't take you seriously! The Labour policies on Tax are wrong and always are, they are based on the politics of envy and class war politics to get the nasty rich men. They also generally increase the rates of tax (for those they hate) but see a reduction in tax revenue because people try to avoid it or move away (businesses and individuals). I have suggested, more tax done across the board is fine if that is what the people want, or you could reduced tax and the government only offer basic levels of public services. Corbyn has it so wrong on so many levels, he wants to tax the rich and business, he wants to spend unlimited amounts and put the country at the mercy of the state and its unions. He has lied to everyone because he can not sustainably deliver his policies, if he had said look we are going to have to increase income tax for all he would not have won as many votes, because many champagne socialists like to whine but have no intention of putting their money where their mouth is. Rich lefties like Lineker and Stormzy who support Corbyn are perfectly entitled to fire off a cheque to HMRC when they like but they don't, instead they try hard to avoid paying as much tax as possible. They need to start at home before pontificating like many lefties. My position is and always will be borrowing a shit tonne of money more when we already owe a shit tonne of money is not a good idea! If socialists want to spend money they need to get it fairly. Also we have something that currently isn't broken, people are generating savings, the economy is growing and employment is high. What we need now is a cut in cheap labour and pay can start to rise.
Guest Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: The Labour policies on Tax are wrong and always are, they are based on the politics of envy and class war politics to get the nasty rich men. They also generally increase the rates of tax (for those they hate) but see a reduction in tax revenue because people try to avoid it or move away (businesses and individuals). I have suggested, more tax done across the board is fine if that is what the people want, or you could reduced tax and the government only offer basic levels of public services. Corbyn has it so wrong on so many levels, he wants to tax the rich and business, he wants to spend unlimited amounts and put the country at the mercy of the state and its unions. He has lied to everyone because he can not sustainably deliver his policies, if he had said look we are going to have to increase income tax for all he would not have won as many votes, because many champagne socialists like to whine but have no intention of putting their money where their mouth is. Rich lefties like Lineker and Stormzy who support Corbyn are perfectly entitled to fire off a cheque to HMRC when they like but they don't, instead they try hard to avoid paying as much tax as possible. They need to start at home before pontificating like many lefties. My position is and always will be borrowing a shit tonne of money more when we already owe a shit tonne of money is not a good idea! If socialists want to spend money they need to get it fairly. Also we have something that currently isn't broken, people are generating savings, the economy is growing and employment is high. What we need now is a cut in cheap labour and pay can start to rise. Socialists don't hate the wealthy. They hate that wealth distribution is unfair. I have no problem with high achievers earning more. I do have a problem with companies paying huge wages to a select few to cheerlead huge profits tied to poverty wages for the majority of the workforce. The idea of a small tax rise for the top 5% is hardly economy breaking. Personally i think we could raise a lot more by finding a way to get the ordinary self employed to pay their honest share but neither party has the balls to call out widespread tax evasion amongst millions of voters.
Buce Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: The Labour policies on Tax are wrong and always are, they are based on the politics of envy and class war politics to get the nasty rich men. They also generally increase the rates of tax (for those they hate) but see a reduction in tax revenue because people try to avoid it or move away (businesses and individuals). I have suggested, more tax done across the board is fine if that is what the people want, or you could reduced tax and the government only offer basic levels of public services. Corbyn has it so wrong on so many levels, he wants to tax the rich and business, he wants to spend unlimited amounts and put the country at the mercy of the state and its unions. He has lied to everyone because he can not sustainably deliver his policies, if he had said look we are going to have to increase income tax for all he would not have won as many votes, because many champagne socialists like to whine but have no intention of putting their money where their mouth is. Rich lefties like Lineker and Stormzy who support Corbyn are perfectly entitled to fire off a cheque to HMRC when they like but they don't, instead they try hard to avoid paying as much tax as possible. They need to start at home before pontificating like many lefties. My position is and always will be borrowing a shit tonne of money more when we already owe a shit tonne of money is not a good idea! If socialists want to spend money they need to get it fairly. Also we have something that currently isn't broken, people are generating savings, the economy is growing and employment is high. What we need now is a cut in cheap labour and pay can start to rise. You are @Claridge and I claim my £100.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 26 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: The only reason EU migration has dipped is because as an economy we've made ourselves a less attractive prospect and because as a populace we've projected a rather unwelcoming image, not because of any meaningful implementation of Tory border control policy. In reality nothing has changed yet or probably ever will. To be honest if it stops the flow of cheap labour which is artificially holding down wages its not a bad thing IMO. We need to curtail cheap labour, it was pretty much impossible to do it within the EU and will lonely get worse over the coming years when the millions of young disillusioned men decided they want to move as everything was not quite all it was made out to be in Bavaria. If you can earn £7 an hour in the UK for packing boxes when you get 1/7th of that in Romania of course you will use freedom of movement to come here, and of course employers will keep pay low if people are willing to do the work.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said: In reality nothing has changed yet or probably ever will. To be honest if it stops the flow of cheap labour which is artificially holding down wages its not a bad thing IMO. We need to curtail cheap labour, it was pretty much impossible to do it within the EU and will lonely get worse over the coming years when the millions of young disillusioned men decided they want to move as everything was not quite all it was made out to be in Bavaria. If you can earn £7 an hour in the UK for packing boxes when you get 1/7th of that in Romania of course you will use freedom of movement to come here, and of course employers will keep pay low if people are willing to do the work. I love this argument. "But if somebody will accept me paying them less for a week's work than I spend on my lunch, it's not my fault that I'm offering it, undercutting the British nationals who demand more to match their living costs". This is the true patriotism.
Captain... Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 57 minutes ago, David Guiza said: Following a tweet from Richard Osman (I think!) and listening to a podcast from Richard Herring with Tim Minchin I would be interested to hear whom people follow/take an interest in from the opposition side of their political sphere. Tim Minchin made a really interesting and, I think, important point about the damaging effect that social media can place on our opinion. We surround ourselves with people's opinion who we know and trust and end up, inadvertently, pigeon holing ourselves into the views that we have and will always hold as a result. I've followed Guide Fawkes for quite a while now, more out of interest than anything else, and it is interesting to see their take on the likes of Corbyn, Owen Jones etc and the liberal left as a whole. Most of what they post I find completely imbalanced and at times ridiculous, as expected, but I don't think I would ever stop following. This is why I like this thread, the reality is always somewhere between the 2 poles, sometimes I can't dispute the arguments against my point of view other times they just confirm what I already believe, but it is important to have your beliefs questioned, as long as people aren't dicks about it. The main thing that comes out from this thread is how polarised political discourse on the front benches and in the media and it feels like it is harder and harder to get to the truth. If you just read the headlines without discussing the meat of the issue you will either dismiss them as nonsense or take it as gospel depending on which side of the divide you are on. 2
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, toddybad said: Socialists don't hate the wealthy. They hate that wealth distribution is unfair. I have no problem with high achievers earning more. I do have a problem with companies paying huge wages to a select few to cheerlead huge profits tied to poverty wages for the majority of the workforce. The idea of a small tax rise for the top 5% is hardly economy breaking. Personally i think we could raise a lot more by finding a way to get the ordinary self employed to pay their honest share but neither party has the balls to call out widespread tax evasion amongst millions of voters. Corbyn does, him and McDonnell have called for a class war. I do think some people earn too much, people in business, people at the BBC, people in the NHS, Local Councils they all earn too much. The difference is if a business decides to pay a silly wage they have to fund it, with a publically funded body its they tax payer. Again I don't disagree that public sector workers on the frontline deserve and increase but some of those in the back off earning 200k don not deserve or need 1% or 5%! I would rather freeze the high earners and increase the lower ones by more. The rich already pay a much higher amount of tax than the lower paid. It broke the economy in France with a 75% rate of tax, I know Corbyn suggests less but it will increase when he doesn't take what he expects. A 1 to 3p rise for all as suggested by the lib dems would have minimal affect. My personal solution is to increase income tax, merge with national insurance, have a higher flat rate for all but increase the personal allowance. That way those on lower wages get to keep more or all of what they earn and only pay POS taxes. You could also reduced the administrative burden of Income Tax, NI and in work benefits for the HMRC and businesses. I agree with getting the Self Employed to pay more but also agree if we do that they need to get paid holiday and maternity/paternity etc etc which they do not currently get. Edited 24 August 2017 by Foxin_mad
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I love this argument. "But if somebody will accept me paying them less for a week's work than I spend on my lunch, it's not my fault that I'm offering it, undercutting the British nationals who demand more to match their living costs". This is the true patriotism. Its just the market. You let millions or Romanians who get paid 7 times less in their country in, they will do they job and people will let them. They can send a few years Salary home and live like kings back home. No business is going to say hang on I have a queue of hard working Romainians here who want £7 a hour and a queue of British youngsters who expect everything on a plate and want £15 an hour, I am patriotic so I will take the latter!! not going to happen! The issue of cheap labour and free movement across the disparity of economies is a European issue and massive failing they refuse to acknowledge, until it is tackled it will hold down wages. Take the cheap labour away and they will either have to stop doing the jobs here which is a possibility or they will have to pay the wages people demand.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Its just the market. You let millions or Romanians who get paid 7 times less in their country in, they will do they job and people will let them. They can send a few years Salary home and live like kings back home. No business is going to say hang on I have a queue of hard working Romainians here who want £7 a hour and a queue of British youngsters who expect everything on a plate and want £15 an hour, I am patriotic so I will take the latter!! not going to happen! The issue of cheap labour and free movement across the disparity of economies is a European issue and massive failing they refuse to acknowledge, until it is tackled it will hold down wages. Take the cheap labour away and they will either have to stop doing the jobs here which is a possibility or they will have to pay the wages people demand. You say it's just the market but if I were to take a job at a company paying so little I'd need to claim in-work benefits (do you think it's acceptable for employers to benefit from cheap labour at the expense of the public purse?) and in order to remain eligible for those benefits I'd be expected to look for other work or else face sanctions. The effect this has is that the company in question would see a lot more staff turnover if they employed locals than if they relied on the foreigners for whom it's a more acceptable level of income, this is one of the reasons behind the work-shy Brits myth - the government/wage is making them move on while the out-of-touch employers complain that they can't keep British staff. By the same supply/demand logic you invoke, if the company offered a better wage they would benefit from attracting the labour of the hard working Brits who currently avoid such meagre incomes like the plague, leaving the role to be filled by immigrants or work-shy kids looking to top up their pocket money while they're still living with their parents. Edited 24 August 2017 by Carl the Llama
Guest BlueBrett Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 It's not just a question of the availability of 'cheap labour'. People always seem to overlook the fact that businesses do actually need to make a profit. Take the box packing example someone mentioned above...the logistics industry is one of the most competitive out there and the major players work with incredibly tight margins and rely of shifting huge volumes as efficiently as possible. Anyone who thinks that if the Eastern Europeans suddenly packed up and left these firms would start paying anything significantly above the bare minimum is very naive. These types of firms can't just relocate overseas either. They have to be where they are and they have to minimise expenses every way that they can. The nationality of the workforce makes literally zero difference and if the government mandated they had to pay substantially higher wages the industry would just collapse unless some other variable like fuel costs shifted downwards to mitigate the additional cost. All these things are so multi-faceted but people have such a simple minded way of thinking about them.
leicsmac Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 5 minutes ago, BlueBrett said: It's not just a question of the availability of 'cheap labour'. People always seem to overlook the fact that businesses do actually need to make a profit. Take the box packing example someone mentioned above...the logistics industry is one of the most competitive out there and the major players work with incredibly tight margins and rely of shifting huge volumes as efficiently as possible. Anyone who thinks that if the Eastern Europeans suddenly packed up and left these firms would start paying anything significantly above the bare minimum is very naive. These types of firms can't just relocate overseas either. They have to be where they are and they have to minimise expenses every way that they can. The nationality of the workforce makes literally zero difference and if the government mandated they had to pay substantially higher wages the industry would just collapse unless some other variable like fuel costs shifted downwards to mitigate the additional cost. All these things are so multi-faceted but people have such a simple minded way of thinking about them. I'm no economist, but if what you say is true and the logistics companies have to stay where they are but provide an essential service, then if they had to suddenly pay a larger wage for British workers the market would simply adjust to reflect this rather than the bottom falling out because the service they provide is by its nature an essential one?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: You say it's just the market but if I were to take a job at a company paying so little I'd need to claim in-work benefits (do you think it's acceptable for employers to benefit from cheap labour at the expense of the public purse?) and in order to remain eligible for those benefits I'd be expected to look for other work or else face sanctions. The effect this has is that the company in question would see a lot more staff turnover if they employed locals than if they relied on the foreigners for whom it's a more acceptable level of income, this is one of the reasons behind the work-shy Brits myth - the government is making them move on while the out-of-touch employers complain that they can't keep British staff. By the same supply/demand logic you invoke, if the company offered a better wage they would benefit from attracting the labour of the hard working Brits who currently avoid such meagre incomes like the plague, leaving the role to be filled by immigrants or work-shy kids looking to top up their pocket money while they're still living with their parents. No I disagree with in work benefits, I have suggested that Income Tax and NI be merged and that everyone pays a higher flat rate, giving those on a low wage a higher tax free allowance. In work benefits is actually a very messy administrative waste of time better that the people receiving them don't pay tax but many pay tax then receive money back. I didn't realise that you could stop receiving in work benefits if you can only get a low paid job and you are made to get another, that seems silly some people can only do basic labour which is fine but realistically that will only pay a certain wage wherever they work. They will pay a better wage if you stem the flow of cheap labour, one of the problems is our entitled society some people just think they are above certain kinds of work. The whole philosophy needs to change but if people are willing to work for a low wage, companies will pay it. Some of the immigrants would happily work for less than our minimum wage and sometimes do. I would also try some ground breaking tax initiatives like reduced rates of tax for companies employing, training and maintaining local labour and with good links in the local community. If they can prove they spent % of turnover on the above they could get a tax reduction for the following year, people need to think outside the box. The time for unlimited growth in our economy is gone.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 10 minutes ago, BlueBrett said: It's not just a question of the availability of 'cheap labour'. People always seem to overlook the fact that businesses do actually need to make a profit. Take the box packing example someone mentioned above...the logistics industry is one of the most competitive out there and the major players work with incredibly tight margins and rely of shifting huge volumes as efficiently as possible. Anyone who thinks that if the Eastern Europeans suddenly packed up and left these firms would start paying anything significantly above the bare minimum is very naive. These types of firms can't just relocate overseas either. They have to be where they are and they have to minimise expenses every way that they can. The nationality of the workforce makes literally zero difference and if the government mandated they had to pay substantially higher wages the industry would just collapse unless some other variable like fuel costs shifted downwards to mitigate the additional cost. All these things are so multi-faceted but people have such a simple minded way of thinking about them. They would have to look at other savings, but they would also collapse if they had no one to pack the boxes. If no one wants the jobs in the UK for the money they are offering they will have to pay more. Obviously the managers will have to find ways to make savings whether that's less staff working harder for more money, higher prices or reductions in other areas of the business.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 9 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I'm no economist, but if what you say is true and the logistics companies have to stay where they are but provide an essential service, then if they had to suddenly pay a larger wage for British workers the market would simply adjust to reflect this rather than the bottom falling out because the service they provide is by its nature an essential one? Yeah that is what would happen. They would adjust the only way they could by passing the additional cost on to their customers. This would put more pressure on smaller businesses in particular, handing even more of the market to the large corporations and supermarkets. They in turn would pass on the costs to their customers i.e. all of us including the warehouse workers who just got a pay rise, meaning the cost of living would increase in direct proportion to the original pay increase thereby closing the loop and rendering the entire process an exercise in futility.
Guest Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 3 minutes ago, BlueBrett said: Yeah that is what would happen. They would adjust the only way they could by passing the additional cost on to their customers. This would put more pressure on smaller businesses in particular, handing even more of the market to the large corporations and supermarkets. They in turn would pass on the costs to their customers i.e. all of us including the warehouse workers who just got a pay rise, meaning the cost of living would increase in direct proportion to the original pay increase thereby closing the loop and rendering the entire process an exercise in futility. This actually is how growth works much of the time. Paying everybody more and then increasing all prices in line actually increases gdp producing increased growth. What's actually important is how money is distributed. Fundamentally its also the difference between the two main parties. Go round in circles over small issues all you like but ultimately labour seeks to redraw the distribution of wealth more evenly whilst the tories can't yet get beyond trickle down economics and survival of an overclass.
Carl the Llama Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: No I disagree with in work benefits, I have suggested that Income Tax and NI be merged and that everyone pays a higher flat rate, giving those on a low wage a higher tax free allowance. In work benefits is actually a very messy administrative waste of time better that the people receiving them don't pay tax but many pay tax then receive money back. I didn't realise that you could stop receiving in work benefits if you can only get a low paid job and you are made to get another, that seems silly some people can only do basic labour which is fine but realistically that will only pay a certain wage wherever they work. They will pay a better wage if you stem the flow of cheap labour, one of the problems is our entitled society some people just think they are above certain kinds of work. The whole philosophy needs to change but if people are willing to work for a low wage, companies will pay it. Some of the immigrants would happily work for less than our minimum wage and sometimes do. I would also try some ground breaking tax initiatives like reduced rates of tax for companies employing, training and maintaining local labour and with good links in the local community. If they can prove they spent % of turnover on the above they could get a tax reduction for the following year, people need to think outside the box. The time for unlimited growth in our economy is gone. But if you take away those benefits then how can people earning £7.50/h working 40 hours a week (£15,600/y, £1300/m) afford to live? Could you make that income work while both living more than a subsistence-based lifestyle and consistently adding to your savings for emergencies or paying for the education/training you need to qualify for a better job? And as I said it's not about thinking oneself is above certain labour, it's thinking oneself needs to earn enough from that labour to live off. Edited 24 August 2017 by Carl the Llama
leicsmac Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 8 minutes ago, BlueBrett said: Yeah that is what would happen. They would adjust the only way they could by passing the additional cost on to their customers. This would put more pressure on smaller businesses in particular, handing even more of the market to the large corporations and supermarkets. They in turn would pass on the costs to their customers i.e. all of us including the warehouse workers who just got a pay rise, meaning the cost of living would increase in direct proportion to the original pay increase thereby closing the loop and rendering the entire process an exercise in futility. That sounds an awful lot like what happens all the time now in any case. Economics sure is interesting, isn't it?
Carl the Llama Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 15 minutes ago, BlueBrett said: Yeah that is what would happen. They would adjust the only way they could by passing the additional cost on to their customers. This would put more pressure on smaller businesses in particular, handing even more of the market to the large corporations and supermarkets. They in turn would pass on the costs to their customers i.e. all of us including the warehouse workers who just got a pay rise, meaning the cost of living would increase in direct proportion to the original pay increase thereby closing the loop and rendering the entire process an exercise in futility. Up there with "the wealth will trickle down" and the invisible hand myth on the list of popular economic fallacies.
Webbo Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 6 hours ago, toddybad said: "I'll listen when somebody points to evidence if a country doing well with socialist policies." Has a country doing well with socialist policies pointed out to him. Doesn't want to consider whether there's any merit in that country's policies so seeks vapid reason not to bother. If I had any respect for Owen Jones's opinions I wouldn't be arguing with you, I'd be agreeing with you. Why you think posting opinion pieces from the Guardian is going to convince anyone you're right is beyond me. As for the article, Portugal has reasonable growth after 5 years of austerity but the 5 years of austerity (imposed by our benevolent over lords, the EU) is nothing to do with the growth? After years of economic contraction a bit of growth is to be expected and a spending spree will always cause a short term boost. Ireland also went through harsh (far harsher than here) austerity and they predicted to grow by 4% this year, without a socialist govt. https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0511/874250-euro-zone-growth-forecast/
Guest Kopfkino Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, toddybad said: Specially for mattp, webbo, kinggtf and that fox bloke who I'm convinced isn't the full ticket. Evidence of socialism working. And it doesn't involve venezuela. No alternative to austerity? That lie has now been nailed https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/24/austerity-lie-deep-cuts-economy-portugal-socialist?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard I think Owen might need to reevaluate his understanding of austerity. If he can't even understand that, then I don't see how he can compare the experiences of Portugal and the UK. All it took me was a quick 10 minute check of the data and a bit of manipulation: Portugal: UK: Year Govt Spending %change in govt spending Fiscal Year Govt Spending %change in govt spending 2010 93.24bn 2010 673bn 2011 88.11bn -5.5% (3.61%) 2011 714bn +6.1% (4.2%) 2012 81.72bn -7.3% (1.92%) 2012 721bn +1% (2.71%) 2013 85.03bn +4% (0.2%) 2013 741bn +2.8% (1.99%) 2014 89.60bn +5.4% (-0.36%) 2014 746bn +0.7% (0.5%) 2015 86.83bn -3.1% (0.4%) 2015 761bn +2% (0.2%) 2016 84.71bn -2.4% (0.88%) 2016 762bn +0.1% (1.6%) 2017 87.21bn +3% 2017 780bn +2.4% So one of those countries suffered a nominal 12% cut in government spending between 2010 and 2012, the other saw no nominal cuts. Inflation is in brackets so Portugal has seen a real terms cut across the period as a whole (only 2013 saw any gain in real terms and then this year will too), the UK has seen a modest real terms rise over the period (with 2012 and 2016 the only years to see a real terms cut, possibly this year too). Portugal's 13 consecutive quarters of growth means they started growing before the 'socialists' were anywhere near. That being said, the quarters since the socialist government took charge have seen some solid growth. How much of that you can attribute to the socialist government is questionable. First budget approved at the back end of Feb 2016, so given implementation and impact lag times, it is certainly dubious whether it had taken effect much before 12 months on. That Q2 figure doesn't look great if you're criticising our 0.3%. The model country saw growth was ours for Q2, despite the uncertainty here being astronomical compared to Portugal. 14Q2 14Q3 14Q4 15Q1 15Q2 15Q3 15Q4 16Q1 16Q2 16Q3 16Q4 17Q1 17Q2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.2 But then it might be useful to look at the UK's first 13 consecutive quarters of growth. I mean just putting nonsense in a body of text works for Owen Jones so it works for me. 13Q1 13Q2 13Q3 13Q4 14Q1 14Q2 14Q3 14Q4 15Q1 15Q2 15Q3 15Q4 16Q1 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.2 So your reply to Strokes that 'Being just above recession isn't steady growth' is just nonsense. Portugal, in those 13 quarters has not had as strong growth as we did in those quarters. We had growth similar to that of Portugal from 16Q3 to 17Q1 when we were adopting these 'austerity' policies. So the growth that Portugal is showing now condemns austerity to the bin of lies, but the growth (actually slightly better) we showed when supposedly adopting these 'austerity' policies doesn't push back against that notion at all? Problem Owen Jones regularly has is that he compares Apples to Oranges, rather than Oranges to Oranges. For example: "And so British workers endured the longest squeeze in wages since the 19th century" without providing any facts about what is happening to Portuguese wages now. But instead he cites "Portugal has increased public investment, reduced the deficit, slashed unemployment and sustained economic growth", of which all the UK has experienced. Portugal suffered devastatingly high tax increases to try to balance the books, something very few economists would back. Even Keynes told governments not to mess about changing taxes to reduce a deficit in normal, let alone times of recession. I'd say that was a bigger problem than cutting spending. I mean there's also no acceptance that the years of austerity might have put Portugal in a better position for growth now. There's no acknowledgement of Ireland. It's typically flawed Owen Jones, bloke is a moron. Edited 24 August 2017 by KingGTF
Guest BlueBrett Posted 24 August 2017 Posted 24 August 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: This actually is how growth works much of the time. Paying everybody more and then increasing all prices in line actually increases gdp producing increased growth. What's actually important is how money is distributed. Fundamentally its also the difference between the two main parties. Go round in circles over small issues all you like but ultimately labour seeks to redraw the distribution of wealth more evenly whilst the tories can't yet get beyond trickle down economics and survival of an overclass. The relentless pursuit of growth is the biggest nonsense in economics. I find myself saying this way too often but how does it make sense to measure a society's success by looking at its ability to grow and consume ever more resources in a world governed by scarcity? It's a complete failure of logic - something somewhere obviously has to give. Fine if you don't give a toss about LEDCs because they can keep losing so that we can keep 'winning' but if we would prefer a system that improves the quality of life for people worldwide then we must eventually abandon this blinkered and irrational mode of thinking. I agree that it would be great to see wealth distributed more evenly across society but the method of redistribution has to be fair and well thought out. I disagree that Labour is the party to oversea the process and I'd dispute whether they are even committed to doing so. They abandoned socialism a long time ago and even if Corbyn miraculously grew some balls and reinstated the old manifesto I seriously doubt he'd have a clue how to go about it anyway.
Recommended Posts