|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 5, 2023 11:50:36 GMT
It's such a complex and multi-faceted phenomena.
One problem is that government is filed with people who believe that adding another layer of bureaucracy or an extra HR department is building something for the future
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 5, 2023 13:02:52 GMT
You don't have to. I assume by we you speak for you and Sally.That's because you haven't a fucking clue. Whereas you have.  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 5, 2023 13:04:25 GMT
It's such a complex and multi-faceted phenomena. One problem is that government is filed with people who believe that adding another layer of bureaucracy or an extra HR department is building something for the future Since when did ideas on here become only viable if the authorities can carry them out well. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 5, 2023 13:08:25 GMT
It's such a complex and multi-faceted phenomena. One problem is that government is filed with people who believe that adding another layer of bureaucracy or an extra HR department is building something for the future Since when did ideas on here become only viable if the authorities can carry them out well. If the government borrows then the government decides how the money is spent. This is like taking money out of the hands of the roughly (averagely) competent and put it into the hands of the delusional and incompetent |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 5, 2023 14:37:48 GMT
Since when did ideas on here become only viable if the authorities can carry them out well. If the government borrows then the government decides how the money is spent. This is like taking money out of the hands of the roughly (averagely) competent and put it into the hands of the delusional and incompetent I disagree. It is well known that one of the things that drives UK innovation abroad is the lack of investment. Most investors in the UK are looking at an exit of no more than 5 years. Government investment can be much longer term and still be good investment. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 5, 2023 15:14:19 GMT
If the government borrows then the government decides how the money is spent. This is like taking money out of the hands of the roughly (averagely) competent and put it into the hands of the delusional and incompetent I disagree. It is well known that one of the things that drives UK innovation abroad is the lack of investment. Most investors in the UK are looking at an exit of no more than 5 years. Government investment can be much longer term and still be good investment. In short, you are against tax reform that might help private investment, but are in favour of the government forcibly taking money off people to spend on rainbow crossings and extra large diversity and inclusion departments In addition, the rising indebtedness will loosen any political control the UK people have and this will make dissolving the country a simple matter in the future I find it hard to believe at least one of the major parties isn't offering this modest package of measures in its manifesto |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 5, 2023 15:34:10 GMT
I disagree. It is well known that one of the things that drives UK innovation abroad is the lack of investment. Most investors in the UK are looking at an exit of no more than 5 years. Government investment can be much longer term and still be good investment. In short, you are against tax reform that might help private investment, but are in favour of the government forcibly taking money off people to spend on rainbow crossings and extra large diversity and inclusion departments I find it hard to believe at least one of the major parties isn't offering this modest package of measures in its manifesto You have a terrible habit of assuming things for me. 1, There are loads of tax perks to encourage investment, they don't work. I'm not against them, they just aren't working. 2, Rainbow crossings and diversity managers are tiny amounts of a huge budget and as such nothing more than the tiny thing you can find to bludgeon all government ideas with. I do not believe these are either indicative of government spending or bankrupting the country. If you want to see waste stop picking on minority groups and try £137,000,000 on the Stonehenge visitor centre, and a thousand similar projects that could have been done for a tenth the price by a private company. So you keep claiming, but I still think you are wrong. Its the type of thinking that claims Google or Microsoft rule the world until you compare Googles budget to America's or Microsoft the Europe's. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 5, 2023 16:03:10 GMT
1, There are loads of tax perks to encourage investment, they don't work. I'm not against them, they just aren't working. Of course reducing tax 'works'. What you are saying here amounts to a claim that people do not act in their own interests. If there are further corruption / incentive problems, sort those out as well (of course) Btw - your implicit counter claim; that a gigantic, over-powered government that takes everyone's money works, has been shown to be incorrect again and again. 2, Rainbow crossings and diversity managers are tiny amounts of a huge budget and as such nothing more than the tiny thing you can find to bludgeon all government ideas with. I do not believe these are either indicative of government spending or bankrupting the country. This is incorrect - but it is not worth arguing here because bankrupting the country wasn't really the point I had in mind. As the government collects money, the control locus changes. When people have their own money, you (as the government) might have to persuade them of your case. When you have their money, there is little discussion needed - they can just be forced to conform to your wishes with their own money. As I've suggested in other parts of the discussion, this is all about control Its the type of thinking that claims Google or Microsoft rule the world until you compare Googles budget to America's or Microsoft the Europe's. For influence to flow, such forces don't need to be able to buy a country or defeat it, they just need to be able to reliably unseat an office-holder. This is easier to achieve (ie a more palpable threat) when a country has a substantial debt. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 5, 2023 16:10:10 GMT
Not watched the video, but your claim makes no sense when you were talking about whole groups of experts. My guess is your scorn is reserved for experts that disagree with your views. well not that long ago we had a whole group of experts in a thing called SAGE - and they managed to get an awful lot of things wrong. must be the wrong sort of experts.. The UK government had an independent advisory group on drug abuse but sacked them and replaced them with another after the leader of the group quite correctly pointed out that when measured per thousand participants more people die from falls from horses than die from cannabis use. This was not helpful so newer experts were found and told what happened to the last lot and why. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2023 16:54:21 GMT
The economic rules state that borrowing for the purpose of day to day spending gets you nowhere except into economic trouble.
This was the problem with Liz Truss, she wanted to borrow to fund tax cuts
Messers Cameron, Osborne, May and now Sunak believe that cuts, cuts, and more cuts will repair the deficit, but without a plan for growth, we will be stuck in the same Tory rut we have been in now for 13 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 5, 2023 17:03:41 GMT
The economic rules state that borrowing for the purpose of day to day spending gets you nowhere except into economic trouble. This was the problem with Liz Truss, she wanted to borrow to fund tax cuts Tax cuts don't have to be funded, it's the spending that has to be funded. Governments regularly borrow money and spend it. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 5, 2023 17:24:48 GMT
That's because you haven't a fucking clue. Whereas you have. Loads. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 5, 2023 17:30:28 GMT
The economic rules state that borrowing for the purpose of day to day spending gets you nowhere except into economic trouble. This was the problem with Liz Truss, she wanted to borrow to fund tax cuts Messers Cameron, Osborne, May and now Sunak believe that cuts, cuts, and more cuts will repair the deficit, but without a plan for growth, we will be stuck in the same Tory rut we have been in now for 13 years. Higher taxes and more Public spending will not provide growth - ffs we currently have the highest taxes and public spending in decades and the lowest sustained growth on record. taking money from the productive parts of the economy and handing to the unproductive never achieves anything worthwhile. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 5, 2023 18:11:07 GMT
The economic rules state that borrowing for the purpose of day to day spending gets you nowhere except into economic trouble. This was the problem with Liz Truss, she wanted to borrow to fund tax cuts Messers Cameron, Osborne, May and now Sunak believe that cuts, cuts, and more cuts will repair the deficit, but without a plan for growth, we will be stuck in the same Tory rut we have been in now for 13 years. Higher taxes and more Public spending will not provide growth - ffs we currently have the highest taxes and public spending in decades and the lowest sustained growth on record. taking money from the productive parts of the economy and handing to the unproductive never achieves anything worthwhile. Well i would suggest the investment in university places free of punitive tuition fees combined with an open and reasonable admission protocol coupled to an aggressive end of first year attrition process that ensured only those prepared to put the hours in and get things done were allowed into the second year worked bloody wonders back in the 70s. Now let me clarify that by saying in those days you went to uni not to sit on your arse for three years out of sight of the unemployment office but to get the paperwork you needed to do a specific, or a particular grade of job. Not like today. But the effect was that of those allowed to proceed to year two at Cardiff, everyone was paying tax in a job that needed some part of what they learned at the end, and the overwhelming majority have had their arse taxed off to repay Wilsons largesse many, many times over. WHICH WAS THE POINT of course. Whether that would work now ? Who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 5, 2023 18:27:39 GMT
Higher taxes and more Public spending will not provide growth - ffs we currently have the highest taxes and public spending in decades and the lowest sustained growth on record. taking money from the productive parts of the economy and handing to the unproductive never achieves anything worthwhile. Well i would suggest the investment in university places free of punitive tuition fees combined with an open and reasonable admission protocol coupled to an aggressive end of first year attrition process that ensured only those prepared to put the hours in and get things done were allowed into the second year worked bloody wonders back in the 70s. Now let me clarify that by saying in those days you went to uni not to sit on your arse for three years out of sight of the unemployment office but to get the paperwork you needed to do a specific, or a particular grade of job. Not like today. But the effect was that of those allowed to proceed to year two at Cardiff, everyone was paying tax in a job that needed some part of what they learned at the end, and the overwhelming majority have had their arse taxed off to repay Wilsons largesse many, many times over. WHICH WAS THE POINT of course. Whether that would work now ? Who knows.Most of todays kids wouldn't cope with such a scheme. |
|
