Forum menu
nationalisation is not the only tool that the left would use to suppress private enterprise now is it?Taxation (NI, VAT leakage, Corporate, Transaction, Stamp Duty etc)
Restrictive employment legislation
Trade tariffs
Duty
Anti-dumping legislation
Registration and certification legislation
etc etc
Ah, so protecting workers' rights is suppressing private enterprise is it? Isn't it interesting how countries with left of centre governments, high levels of taxation, and high levels of employee protection manage to remain competitive?
"exceptions do not prove the rule. There's as many liberals who are repelled by Labour as by Conservative. That's the idiocy of aligning them with right and left as they are neither, their ground is centrist but not common to both the other parties."
A centrist party was founded by labour MPs, and is now part of the Lib Dems.
Next!
Marks and Spencers!
Like Germany ransos?
There was a case a couple of years ago when a multinational wanted to shut one of its European plants. it shut the UK one - why? because it was cheaper. To shut the German one would have meant they would have had to pay redundancy and compensation on a much larger scale.
So Germany kept the jobs, the UK lost them precisely because they had decent employment protection
would that be the same Germany with "Private sector growth at 26-month low in Sept"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/9859663
EDIT: anyway, stuff to do. Catch up with you boys later.
"Like Germany ransos?"
Yes, and the Scandinavian countries. I don't understand why it's considered to be axiomatic that relatively high levels of tax and employee rights reduce competitiveness: those countries prove the opposite.
Ransos - because teh far right economically folk such as stoner want to believe it as it supports their prejudices.
"would that be the same Germany with "Private sector growth at 26-month low in Sept"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/9859663
EDIT: anyway, stuff to do. Catch up with you boys later. "
Is that the best you can do? How well is the UK doing, with its low tax, low-rights regime? How would you like to compare the relative performance of the UK, Germany & Scandinavia over the last 30 years? What do you think that would show?
Are we allowed to mention the 'Arc of Prosperity'?
With their low tax, light-touch regulatory regimes. How are they all doing?
How would you like to compare the relative performance of the UK, Germany & Scandinavia over the last 30 years?
Not too shabby as it happens:
best I can do at short notice (havent time to work up the source data at the moment)
[img] https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XzXm_tBkg_w/To13SMhgRCI/AAAAAAAAAvw/52nF9DRduIU/s640/TradingEconomics.com%252520-%252520Indicators%252520for%252520232%252520Countries.%252520-%252520Google%252520Chrome%25252006102011%252520103833.jp g" target="_blank">
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XzXm_tBkg_w/To13SMhgRCI/AAAAAAAAAvw/52nF9DRduIU/s640/TradingEconomics.com%252520-%252520Indicators%252520for%252520232%252520Countries.%252520-%252520Google%252520Chrome%25252006102011%252520103833.jp g"/> [/img]
Not too shabby as it happens:best I can do at short notice (havent time to work up the source data at the moment)
Your graph shows that Germany outperformed or matched the UK. So they absorbed a communist basket case, have higher tax and higher employee protection, yet are as good as the UK in GDP.
Thanks for proving my point. Shall we do Scandinavia next?
I made a pact yesterday - stop having econ/political debates on STW as positions too entrenched and arguments become circular - far better to get on your bike and go for a ride. Healthier and far more interesting.
So calm down everyone - go for a ride before winter arrives!
Your graph shows that Germany outperformed or matched the UK
eeerrrrrrr...
German GDP per capita USD 2000prices 1970: $11,859 to 2009: $25,450 = 14.6% real growth
[s]German[/s] UK* GDP per capita USD 2000prices 1970: $13,053 to 2009: $28,955 = 21.8% real growth
I can lend you some glasses if you like 😉
* thanks emz
I made a pact yesterday - stop having econ/political debates on STW as positions too entrenched and arguments become circular
yeah, but the predictability is comforting.
You'll be back.
You should carry on IMHO you bring a fair amount to the table, even though you are almost always wrong 😀
soobalias - Memberi donated £15 to the east african fund through DEC and didnt go to the pub last night
best use of 3mins of prime time tv, wont change my political/voting habits - in much the same way that no other PPB ever has
Some good achieved, so maybe the dubious motivation of Dave et al doesn't matter?
...{and the state of German banking] ...oops, almost got drawn back in! Where's my bike gone!
Thank you JY - very drole!! 😉
I made a pact yesterday - stop having econ/political debates on STW as positions too entrenched and arguments become circular
On this forum, arguments aren't circular, they're cyclical.
edit your post stoner.
circular, they're cyclical.
if theyre both does that make them sinusoidal?
So Germany started from a higher base, and you think this is a bad thing? Interesting. So, as I said: communist basket case integrated, high tax, high rights, and they're the largest economy in Europe.
Sadly for you, glasses won't cure your myopia. 😉
To go back to an erlier point.
Of course the tory policies are designed to enrich their backers - that is the whole reason for the tory party.
For example
Hedge fund boss John Nash is one of the major Conservative donors with close ties to the healthcare industry.He and wife Caroline gave £203,500 to the party over the past five years. The cash included £21,000 which was given directly to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley to bankroll his office before the Conservatives took power. At the time the Lib Dems slammed the payments as a “staggering conflict of interest”.
The City tycoon was chairman of Care UK, which makes most of its money from the NHS, when most of the donations were made. Mr Nash continued to work as a consultant to the firm, which provides walk-in centres, GP surgeries and other specialist services, after selling his majority stake to a private equity firm last year.
Or teh telegraph if you prefer
Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, is being bankrolled by the head of one of the biggest private health providers to the NHS, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Or the sunday times
The Shadow Health Minister, Lord McColl, is a paid consultant to a new private healthcare company that provides a fee-paying rival to the National Health Service’s family doctor service.Endeavour Health, which was set up by two hedge fund advisers, claims to be Britain’s first comprehensive GP network, offering access to the best doctors and the opportunity to beat NHS queues and have appointments at any time they want.
Lord McColl’s involvement with a private healthcare provider highlights the strains within the Conservative Party, which is trying to present itself as a champion of the NHS while also maintaining its traditional links with the industry. David Cameron has been forced to reiterate his commitment to a free health service after the prominent Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan described the NHS as a “60-year mistake” that he “wouldn’t wish on anyone”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6801270.ece
German GDP per capita USD 2000prices 1970: $11,859 to 2009: $25,450 = 14.6% real growthGerman GDP per capita USD 2000prices 1970: $13,053 to 2009: $28,955 = 21.8% real growth
I can lend you some glasses if you like
Think you need a new pair anyway 😉
Hows that growth worked out?
Th e proportional increase is nearly identical
If you just divide the first number by the second you get 2.16 and 2.22 respectively which seems pretty comparable/near identical over 40 years. They did absorb East Germany in that time. It seems safe to assume that West germany would have grown considerably more iwth out its Eastern tax/subsidy tbh.
sorry my typo appears to have confused ransos & JY 😉
Growth = (GDP2 - GDP1)/GDP1
UK started from a higher base, but finished at a proportionally higher GDP.
ergo, UK has outperformed Germany over the last 40 years.
As for the East germany thing, maybe Germany couldnt have grown without the cheaper Easter German labour? Maybe UK might have grown faster if it werent being held back by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
*retires to a safe distance*
As for the East germany thing, maybe Germany couldnt have grown without the cheaper Easter German labour? Maybe UK might have grown faster if it werent being held back by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
No you didn't...
*retires to a safe distance*
Bolivia?
TJ - you missed out Djangoly as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/02/justice-minister-failed-to-declare-interest
The simple fact is that, as of 2010 Germany has a higher GDP per capita than the UK. It also has higher taxes and higher levels of employee protection. If you believe that East Germany wasn't a huge drain on resources then you need your head read.
Stoner: your case is dismissed:
Country GDP per Capita (PPP)$
Norway 51959
Sweden 38204
Denmark 36444
Germany 36081
UK 35059
Finland 34918
IMF data.
Maybe UK might have grown faster if it werent being held back by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
*sighs*
Scotland is in surplus, scotland sends money south
UK has outperformed Germany over the last 40 years.
If you use your statistic of choice yet the proportional increase is identical
I am not sure you have proved your point
I find it a disgraceful slur for you to suggest I am confused about economics 😯 😆
Lies damn lies and statistics then???
To go back to an earlier point.Of course [s]the tory[/s] Labour policies are designed to enrich their backers - that is the whole reason for the [s]tory[/s] Labour party.
For example
Only difference is that the backers of the Labour party are the Unions, their primary interest is the benefit of their members, not the benefit of the nation as a whole
as we saw with Bob Crow, just this week
And given the poor state the nations finances were in when this new lot came into power I am not surprised they keep referring to the mess they found and pinning the blame on the last government because that's who was to blame. Gordon Brown will forever be one of, if not the, worst chancellor we ever had. I don't see George Osborne as ever ranking as one of the best but so far he is still better than Gordon.
The tories pledged to match Labour's spending plans before the crash, and were demanding even lighter regulation!
There's only one thing for it.
A new party. A party for the people. A party run by people who have lived in the real world, with real world ideas.
Anyone got Kilroy Silk's number?
I wouldnt want to join a party that would have TJ [i]and[/i] me as members. It'd be too contradictory.
The tories pledged to match Labour's spending plans before the crash, and were demanding even lighter regulation!
Presumably that was before they realised that there wasn't actually any money left to spend by the previous "prudent" government. A somewhat helpful nmessage left by the then outgoing chancellor.
And returning to a previous point, while there may be individual links between various party members and private individuals (on all sides of the house)I think it shows a lack of reasoning if anyone seriously believes that all the Tories want to do is line their own pockets. And their mates pockets. And that that is all they want to do.
Only difference is that the backers of the Labour party are the Unions, their primary interest is the benefit of their members, not the benefit of the nation as a whole
Only difference is, everyone can join a union, not everyone can become a member of the aristocracy/public school educated elite.
If you use your statistic of choice yet the proportional increase is identical
I am not sure you have proved your point
I find it a disgraceful slur for you to suggest I am confused about economics
Lies damn lies and statistics then???
If you're reduced to selectively quoting me then you really have nothing in your locker. The simple fact is that Germany (and all of the Scandinavian countries except Finland) have a higher GDP per capita than the UK. So much for the laissez faire arguments...
Only difference is, everyone can join a union,....
Errr... there is no union that represents my interests. I could however join a party, as can anyone else be it Tory, Labour, Lib Dem. I find your argument lacking.
Presumably that was before they realised that there wasn't actually any money left to spend by the previous "prudent" government. A somewhat helpful nmessage left by the then outgoing chancellor.
What do you think they should have done instead? I ask because as the tories were clamouring for even lighter regulation, it's highly likely that the same crisis would have occurred had they been in power. So, given that, what should Labour have done differently in its response?
Only difference is that the backers of the Labour party are the Unions, their primary interest is the benefit of their members, not the benefit of the nation as a whole
Is that why Labour are backing the public-sector unions over the strike proposals? Oh, hang on - they're not.
Is that why Labour are backing the public-sector unions over the strike proposals? Oh, hang on - they're not.
Maybe thats because the negotiations are ongoing and it would be irresponsible to strike. ...or even that the unions demands are unreasonable and unsustainable?
Errr... there is no union that represents my interests
he says, typing on his (union won)lunch break. I find your argument lacking.
*awaits excuse of not really being on lunchbreak*
"Maybe thats because the negotiations are ongoing and it would be irresponsible to strike. ...or even that the unions demands are unreasonable and unsustainable? "
Except that:
1) no evidence has been produced to show that the unions' demands are unsustainable.
2) The current arrangements were negotiated in 2008, on the basis of an actuarial study. No study has been produced since.
3)The word "unaffordable" does not appear in the Hutton report.
4) The government has negotiated in bad faith, by making its demands prior to any negotiations.
In any case, none of this is relevant. If Labour really was beholden to the unions, it would support the strike. It isn't and it doesn't.
not everyone can become a member of the aristocracy/public school educated elite
ladies and gentlemen I present Lord Prescot 😉 or is he the exception that proves the rule?
and where does Diane Abbot send her son for his education?
the public school thing amuses me, the person who get the "blame" is the person getting the education, the person who makes the decision is the parent (and no I didn't get a public school education) the kid has little or no choice
Of course the tory policies are designed to enrich their backers - that is the whole reason for the tory party.
I'm pretty confident that's the entire reason for any party. I mean what would be the point of having a party that wasn't for the direct or indirect benefit of the people who support said party?