The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

[MooseBreath]

No, I don't see the pattern at all...

- While the 74-79 Labour govt deserves criticism, it inherited high and rising inflation from Heath's Tories, plus an oil crisis; Heath had presided over a 3-day week and been thrown out of office

- Thatcher maintained a deficit from 1979 until 1987, and the budge was back in deficit by 1990, before she was knifed by the Tories (look at the graph)

- "Major inherited a major recession"....indeed he did! He inherited it from Thatcher (or more specifically from the "Lawson boom")....Labour hadn't been in office for 11 years then!

- Despite justified criticisms, the economy thrived under Brown from 1997 until 2008 (global financial crash)....11 years, no temporary inherited blip; he ran a budget surplus from 1998 to 2001 due to the decision to stick to Tory spending plans....which Ken Clarke (outgoing Tory Chancellor) is on record as saying that he wouldn't have done! So, by 2001 the deficit would actually have been back and higher under the Tories, according to Clarke!

The only pattern that I see is one of a post-imperial country with structural problems consistently refusing to invest and to plan its economic future until it is forced to. Short-termism is a pattern, as is the desire of all political parties to pretend that we can have high-quality public services AND low taxes. I give the Tories some credit for finally being the ones to grasp the nettle and reform pensions. Someone's going to have to do something similar for the NHS & social services, unless we want either much higher taxes or Dickensian misery and squalor...

"Major inherited a major recession"....from a cabinet that he was a member of! Give me strength! Labour deserve some criticism, but a less one-eyed analysis from the Tory boys would be appreciated!

Some fair points no doubt. I don't know all the intricate details of politics in the 1970s. Much more important is recent performance as that reflects the recent economic stance of the parties, and can be used to more accurately predict what might happen in the future. From recent history we can see only reckless disasters from labour and the left elsewhere like France, while the tories have looked extremely competent at managing the economy in very difficult circumstances. Why would anyone who recognises the importance of a successful economy choose to vote leftwards when examples abound of lefty economic disasters? Not just poor performance, but actual catastrophe. The Tories haven't done a perfect job but are certainly in a totally different class to labour.

[lavrentis]

Good News - OSX Yosemite is amazing and everyone should get a Mac.

[MPH]

7.6% of GDP, which by comparison to other OECD nations is pretty low.

 

They are however pretty big on nationalised industries (or at least part-to-most-owned, especially in the fields of communication and transportation) and those industries spending a lot on infrastructure projects. 

 

 

Hate to be a boblet, but welfare is actually 17% That doesnt of course include pensions which is another 20% and healthcare which is another 18%

 

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/142/economics/what-does-the-government-spend-its-money-on/

Edited 22 October 2014 by MPH

[Webbo]

Hate to be a boblet, but welfare is actually 17%

 

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/142/economics/what-does-the-government-spend-its-money-on/

He's talking about welfare in s. Korea.

[MPH]

bugger.

[leicsmac]

Hate to be a boblet, but welfare is actually 17% That doesnt of course include pensions which is another 20% and healthcare which is another 18%

 

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/142/economics/what-does-the-government-spend-its-money-on/

 

Top hint: The country I'm working in is not the UK.

 

Ah, Webbo beat me to it.

[MPH]

Top hint: The country I'm working in is not the UK.

 

Ah, Webbo beat me to it.

yeah this is what happens when i try and be a keyboard warrior and work at the same time. I read randomly and reply with gusto....

 

 

[MooseBreath]

At least you proved the point re how much less they spend on welfare in South Korea. Goes to show how much more we can cut from the budget here.

[ADK]

Welfare shouldn't directly harm an economy though, it's merely a political choice. High welfare as a proportion of GDP may or may not indicate underlying problems but you can't blame it for economic performance.

[MooseBreath]

Welfare shouldn't directly harm an economy though, it's merely a political choice. High welfare as a proportion of GDP may or may not indicate underlying problems but you can't blame it for economic performance.

How's it not going to harm an economy when it incentivises people who could otherwise be productive to produce nothing at all?

[Webbo]

Welfare shouldn't directly harm an economy though, it's merely a political choice. High welfare as a proportion of GDP may or may not indicate underlying problems but you can't blame it for economic performance.

What about the money that it extracts from the economy that could be spent on other things?

[Rincewind]

MP's expenses?

[leicsmac]

At least you proved the point re how much less they spend on welfare in South Korea. Goes to show how much more we can cut from the budget here.

 

Would you be willing to take the nationalisation (or at least close government control/spending input) of the communication and transportation industries along with that? It's an integral part of the economy over here, as well as the low welfare band.

[MooseBreath]

Would you be willing to take the nationalisation (or at least close government control/spending input) of the communication and transportation industries along with that? It's an integral part of the economy over here, as well as the low welfare band.

How are they linked?

[leicsmac]

How are they linked?

 

The big government-controlled (or subsidised) transportation and communication companies over here are massive, massive employers. They (along with the big chaebol companies like Hyundai, Samsung, LG et al) contribute to a really low unemployment rate (2.7% as of late last year), which means that less needs to be spent on welfare - particularly unemployment benefits.

 

I don't think the government over here has a really heavy hand in what goes on in most companies over here, but it is there and mass employment is seen to be a sucessful economic model over here. I think also a lot of it is to do with the sense of identity in that Korean companies are working for the Korean nation, so sticking their profits back into the country as it were by employing more people and contributing to other areas of society is seen as dutiful.

 

Edit: That said, it isn't all sweetness and light. Corruption is still a big problem in the big companies here and also the international economic investing community tends to get skittish about a country that has its capital and nerve centre within 50 miles of a hostile, psychopathic border.

Edited 23 October 2014 by leicsmac

[Rincewind]

Tesco in financial trouble The US billionaire who bought a load of shares has said it was the worst mistake he has made.

[MooseBreath]

Tesco in financial trouble The US billionaire who bought a load of shares has said it was the worst mistake he has made.

Good news thread?

[Webbo]

Good news thread?

It is if you hate rich people.

[Rincewind]

It is if you hate rich people.

Nah. Never wanted to start a new thread.. I quoted from the Mail to make it sound better.

[ADK]

How's it not going to harm an economy when it incentivises people who could otherwise be productive to produce nothing at all?

 

That's why I said not directly. You are making a subjective argument.

 

What about the money that it extracts from the economy that could be spent on other things?

 

It doesn't extract money from the economy though. Obviously there's an opportunity cost as with any form of spending.

[Webbo]

That's why I said not directly. You are making a subjective argument.

 

 

It doesn't extract money from the economy though. Obviously there's an opportunity cost as with any form of spending.

The money doesn't come out of thin air, the govt takes it out of taxes or borrowing.

[ADK]

The money doesn't come out of thin air, the govt takes it out of taxes or borrowing.

 

I know that, but it doesn't disappear into thin air either.

[MooseBreath]

That's why I said not directly. You are making a subjective argument.

Not really. That money motivates people to be productive is pretty obvious fact. You're right that the opportunity cost isn't directly harming the economy, but it's such a solid link you might as well call it direct.

[MooseBreath]

The big government-controlled (or subsidised) transportation and communication companies over here are massive, massive employers. They (along with the big chaebol companies like Hyundai, Samsung, LG et al) contribute to a really low unemployment rate (2.7% as of late last year), which means that less needs to be spent on welfare - particularly unemployment benefits.

I don't think the government over here has a really heavy hand in what goes on in most companies over here, but it is there and mass employment is seen to be a sucessful economic model over here. I think also a lot of it is to do with the sense of identity in that Korean companies are working for the Korean nation, so sticking their profits back into the country as it were by employing more people and contributing to other areas of society is seen as dutiful.

Edit: That said, it isn't all sweetness and light. Corruption is still a big problem in the big companies here and also the international economic investing community tends to get skittish about a country that has its capital and nerve centre within 50 miles of a hostile, psychopathic border.

That's interesting. If these large firms feel that their employment practices carry national responsibility for cultural reasons then that's hard to emulate. I can't really imagine large UK companies taking an active interest in reducing unemployment, and I'm not sure I'd want them to. A link between politics and business as close as that seems like it would be wide open for corruption and manipulation. Four big part-nationalised companies employing the majority of people? Sounds very controlled.

[leicsmac]

That's interesting. If these large firms feel that their employment practices carry national responsibility for cultural reasons then that's hard to emulate. I can't really imagine large UK companies taking an active interest in reducing unemployment, and I'm not sure I'd want them to. A link between politics and business as close as that seems like it would be wide open for corruption and manipulation. Four big part-nationalised companies employing the majority of people? Sounds very controlled.

 

I've made arguments against such links between government and big business my own self on here in the past, given how open to corruption it indeed is.

 

But, for whatever reason, over here (in terms of economic performance anyway) it seems to work. Korea was one of the very few countries to get through most of the severe part of the global recession pretty unscathed. 

 

It's more than four individual companies (there are quite a few different marquee chaebol, though Samsung is by far the largest), but yeah, the links with government are evident in all of them. I'm not quite sure how it works...but it does. 

 

As I said though, there is a cost in the form of corruption (it is still an issue here, though not one that seems to hold much back) and the lack of welfare often meaning old folk having to scrounge for cardboard in the street because their families can't or won't help them. Also, you as always have the spectre of the North in international economic consideration (though the majority of actual Koreans don't give a shit these days) and there are productivity issues here - Koreans work the longest hours of practically all the OECD nations (due to the workplace culture), but have some of the lowest productivity figures, which goes to show working 'hard' isn't the same as working 'long'. 

 

Oh, and the school system (as I've mentioned many times) is a huge pressure cooker that encourages conformity and discourages creative thought, but that is changing - albeit slowly.