Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Any money you spend on supporting defunct industries is money not spent on supporting growth industries, where the younger people (not only youth) will be getting their future jobs.

Exactly what money did the government spend on "supporting growth industries"? Can we now rely on the jobs and export income from these new industries to pay for the imported coal/steel/etc and cover the benefits for those people who lost their jobs (or never got one) as a consequence? Doesn't seem so, does it.

Or are you talking about loosening financial regulations to help "our friends in the City"? :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, but there wasn't a £10K tax allowance either!

but there was an allowance that everyone got, which wasn't taken away above a certain level.

I concede that, only because those over £100k have the PA removed on a taper, it is therefore a benefit to everyone else.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what money did the government spend on "supporting growth industries"? Can we now rely on the jobs and export income from these new industries to pay for the imported coal/steel/etc and cover the benefits for those people who lost their jobs (or never got one) as a consequence? Doesn't seem so, does it.

Or are you talking about loosening financial regulations to help "our friends in the City"? :o

The government (this one and the last one) have done only a few things to support entrepreneurship, e.g. the EIS and SEIS, both of which are actually really, really good.

But not enough, and continuing to support defunct industries isn't the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government (this one and the last one) have done only a few things to support entrepreneurship, e.g. the EIS and SEIS, both of which are actually really, really good.

But not enough, and continuing to support defunct industries isn't the answer.

Except coal isn't a defunct industry, the closure of the mines was political.

When you consider the problems we are starting to have with energy security and supply. These problems aren't going away.

Also the money spent on benefits being used to subsidise critical industries takes nothing away from emerging opportunities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a business, you would choose to buy more expensive materials than your competitors?

In the past we did as a country, because buying from China was not always a safe place to by from, it it now?

During two world wars we had our own steel and coal supplies for a good secure energy supply. What have we got now. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past we did as a country, because buying from China was not always a safe place to by from, it it now?

During two world wars we had our own steel and coal supplies for a good secure energy supply. What have we got now. :o

When you say 'as a country', who actually did the buying?

I'm referring to private firms - are you saying that you would support a government ruling to force private firms to buy british steel and coal, knowing their competitors are getting the same goods cheaper?

Edit: I suggest you go read Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage.

Edited by SHERWICK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except coal isn't a defunct industry, the closure of the mines was political.

When you consider the problems we are starting to have with energy security and supply. These problems aren't going away.

Also the money spent on benefits being used to subsidise critical industries takes nothing away from emerging opportunities.

1. You may be right about coal not being a defunct industry, which means that it wouldn't need much support at all. And it may be strategic anyway as others have said, which means it may make sense supporting it.

2. You are wrong that money spent subsidising critical industries takes nothing away from emerging opportunities though - it definitely crowds out funding from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say 'as a country', who actually did the buying?

I'm referring to private firms - are you saying that you would support a government ruling to force private firms to buy british steel and coal, knowing their competitors are getting the same goods cheaper?

Edit: I suggest you go read Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage.

No thanks, there's nothing in there will stop the lights going out when other countries decide to stop exports of energy to us like some countries already have. :o

Edited by awaytogo
Link to post
Share on other sites

But not enough, and continuing to support defunct industries isn't the answer.

It's the only answer until you have something better than a few half-baked "schemes" to try and encourage entrepreneurs, it's not much to put up against our industrial wastelands.

If someone like Google was a UK company, or maybe even had been at some point, you might have the semblance of an argument, but what they did was allow (and in some cases, actively encourage) industries that were massive UK employers to die. And now people are getting all upset there are no jobs that will cover the bills for these people and their successors.

British Leyland and their ilk - yeah, they deserved to go the way of the do do, and cars really aren't one of life's essentials. If you stopped importing cars to the UK tomorrow, we could survive for a while and figure out how to make our own cars.

But energy IS one of the essentials.

Here's a little recap for you.

In 2012,

Coal-fired power stations provided 41% of the UK's electricity (gas 26%, nuclear 20%, others (including renewables) 13%).

The UK consumed 64.1 million tonnes of coal in 2012, including 54.9 million tonnes in power stations.

Coal imports to the UK were 44.8 million tonnes, a large increase (+37.7%) on the previous year's amount, mainly as a result of a dramatic increase in electricity generated from coal. Indigenous production was 9.9% less than the previous year at 16.8 million tonnes. (Over the year, 3.0 million tonnes was lifted from stock, compared to 0.8 million tonnes in 2011.)

So we imported over two thirds of the raw material (that is deposited in huge amounts all over the country) we rely on for the majority of our energy production.

Mag-fu*king-nificent.

I hope David Ricardo is going to be keeping the generator going when my lights and central heating die in winter 2015.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't be a false dichotomy. If you support all the old and defunct industries up and down the country with money, you are therefore diverting money away (i.e. crowding out investment) from new/emerging industries.

It's a bit like all the money that was diverted into BTL crowded out financing of startups and entrepreneurship.

Yes but they werent defunct.The mines for example were not for certain.The shipyards just needed investment as they were too small to build the big ships Korea etc had the yards to build.The train and rolling stock factories were far from defunct.In fact if investment had gone into the railways instead of the roads wed be in a much better state.

I was right wing once as well and was a flag carrying Thatcher lover.The harsh reality is though those industries should of been helped because the costs were/are tiny compared to what welfare costs now.

Maybe we would of had quite a bit of malinvestment but not on the scale welfare is malinvestment or housing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say 'as a country', who actually did the buying?

I'm referring to private firms - are you saying that you would support a government ruling to force private firms to buy british steel and coal, knowing their competitors are getting the same goods cheaper?

Edit: I suggest you go read Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage.

I think we've got a little off the point I was initially trying to make which is I'd rather pay people to do ANYTHING other than sitting at home.

If there's a better mechanism than nationalised industry then so be it, but it's just about the best one my limited imagination can come up with right now. And it doesn't have to be limited to heavy industry, as I initially said - electronics, aviation, whatever. Biotech, nanotech, space exploration. Anything. If we can afford a 100bn welfare budget, we can afford 100 bn of subsidy for industry and also get all the good things that come along with people at least feeling like they're of some use.

Edited by frozen_out
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is as valid as the laffer curve, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

The difference between theory and practice. We've ended up with a vastly lopsided economy based in one region of the country with desolation, despair and drugs in much of the former industrial areas. We've become obsessed with house prices and financial gimmickry. The economic cost is massively higher than any money that was saved before we even start on the social costs. But as long as the textbooks say everything is sound then that's OK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sneaky old Gordon!

The worst thing about what Brown did isnt tax credits themselves,its why he brought them in.He (and other front bench Labour) decided not to bother with the old Labour policies of pushing wages increases and industry/good paying jobs.He also wanted to push the single mother agenda to appease a lot of the party.He was desperate to destroy the nuclear family.The left always saw marriage as oppression but Brown was much cleverer.He saw destroying the family as killing the rights voter base.

He decided the city would pay the tax so he could shunt it to everyone on the dole or even better working 16 hours.

In time the left will burn an effigy of Brown on bonfires for what he did.Not only did he destroy the economy and bankrupt the state he destroyed the welfare system as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we've got a little off the point I was initially trying to make which is I'd rather pay people to do ANYTHING other than sitting at home.

If there's a better mechanism than nationalised industry then so be it, but it's just about the best one my limited imagination can come up with right now. And it doesn't have to be limited to heavy industry, as I initially said - electronics, aviation, whatever. Biotech, nanotech, space exploration. Anything. If we can afford a 100bn welfare budget, we can afford 100 bn of subsidy for industry and also get all the good things that come along with people at least feeling like they're of some use.

My apologies, actually I agree with you. I'd rather pay people to do anything other than sitting at home - even work in nationalised industries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but they werent defunct.The mines for example were not for certain.The shipyards just needed investment as they were too small to build the big ships Korea etc had the yards to build.The train and rolling stock factories were far from defunct.In fact if investment had gone into the railways instead of the roads wed be in a much better state.

I was right wing once as well and was a flag carrying Thatcher lover.The harsh reality is though those industries should of been helped because the costs were/are tiny compared to what welfare costs now.

Maybe we would of had quite a bit of malinvestment but not on the scale welfare is malinvestment or housing.

Yep, you're correct. There should have been strategic investments in the shipyards along the lines you mention above, and other industries too, in order to make them, no force them, to be competitive as we left the 20th century.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies, actually I agree with you. I'd rather pay people to do anything other than sitting at home - even work in nationalised industries.

It interests me that a lot of entrenched political positions on welfare, govt. spending etc. seem to compare the proposed policy with some kind of absolute ideal, rather than with the current settlement. I have an acquaintance, very lefty and liberal, who nonetheless won't even start discussing Citizens Income because "it's wrong to pay people to not work". When you point out that that already happens they just look at you and say "yes it's wrong".

It's very complex and subtle I suppose... of course nationalised industries are inefficient, but that's life. Are they less inefficient than other options? Do they have other hidden benefits or downsides?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing about what Brown did isnt tax credits themselves,its why he brought them in.He (and other front bench Labour) decided not to bother with the old Labour policies of pushing wages increases and industry/good paying jobs.He also wanted to push the single mother agenda to appease a lot of the party.He was desperate to destroy the nuclear family.The left always saw marriage as oppression but Brown was much cleverer.He saw destroying the family as killing the rights voter base.

He decided the city would pay the tax so he could shunt it to everyone on the dole or even better working 16 hours.

In time the left will burn an effigy of Brown on bonfires for what he did.Not only did he destroy the economy and bankrupt the state he destroyed the welfare system as well.

Sad as it may seem now I actually believed in the Third Way for a while - I really thought British industry was going to be revitalised.

In practice I just thought Gordon Brown knew he couldn't change the Reagan/Thatcher economic orthodoxy and the power of the VIs so he just went along with it whilst trying to do a stealth redistribution. I'm still not convinced it was all a masterplan although I'm leaning much more that way these days.

Edited by oldsport
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.