Do you support the RMT?

halfmist said:
I am afraid the lefties don’t understand basic Economics and inflation so your wasting your time.
Not quite sure what you mean by proper taxation.
If you mean effective rates of 98% when the Investment Income Surcharge was in place during the 1970’s when Mr Silly Billy was Chancellor it ain’t going to work in a modern economy where the rich can move their wealth to anywhere in the World.
Click to expand...
I find that it is sometimes the righties (often hawkish neoliberals) that don’t appear to understand basic economics and inflation because they assume that high levels of inflation are necessarily bad for a given economy.

However, there is actually no evidence that, at low levels, inflation inevitably has this kind of deleterious impact. The following is from one of Cambridge based economist Ha Joon Chang’s well-known publications:

‘For example, even studies performed by some free-market economists associated with the University of Chicago and the IMF suggest that, below 8 to 10 per cent, inflation has no relationship with a country’s economic growth rate. Some studies would even put the figure higher - 20 per cent or even 40 per cent.

The experiences of individual countries also suggest that fairly high inflation can actually also be compatible with rapid economic growth. During the 1960’s and 70’s, Brazil had an average inflation rate of 42 per cent but was one of the fastest growing economies in the world, with its per capita income growing at 4.5 per cent a year. During the same period, per capita income in South Korea was growing at 7 per cent a year, despite an annual average rate of inflation of nearly 20 per cent.

Moreover, there is evidence that excessive anti-inflationary policies can actually be harmful for an economy. Since 1996, when Brazil - having gone through a traumatic phase of rapid inflation, although not quite of hyperinflationary magnitude - started to control inflation by raising real interest rates (nominal interest rates minus the rate of inflation) to some of the highest levels in the world (10 to 12 per cent per year), it’s inflation fell to 7.1 per cent per year but its economic growth also suffered, with a per capita income growth rate of only 1.3 per cent per year. South Africa has also had a similar experience since 1994, when it started giving inflation control top priority and jacked up interest rates to the Brazilian levels mentioned above.

This is because the policies that are aimed to reduce inflation actually reduce investment and thus economic growth.’

Just thought this was worth a mention and apologies for taking the thread a bit off-topic with this tangential post.
 
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
I find that it is sometimes the righties (often hawkish neoliberals) that don’t appear to understand basic economics and inflation because they assume that high levels of inflation are necessarily bad for a given economy.

However, there is actually no evidence that, at low levels, inflation inevitably has this kind of deleterious impact. The following is from one of Cambridge based economist Ha Joon Chang’s well-known publications:

‘For example, even studies performed by some free-market economists associated with the University of Chicago and the IMF suggest that, below 8 to 10 per cent, inflation has no relationship with a country’s economic growth rate. Some studies would even put the figure higher - 20 per cent or even 40 per cent.

The experiences of individual countries also suggest that fairly high inflation can actually also be compatible with rapid economic growth. During the 1960’s and 70’s, Brazil had an average inflation rate of 42 per cent but was one of the fastest growing economies in the world, with its per capita income growing at 4.5 per cent a year. During the same period, per capita income in South Korea was growing at 7 per cent a year, despite an annual average rate of inflation of nearly 20 per cent.

Moreover, there is evidence that excessive anti-inflationary policies can actually be harmful for an economy. Since 1996, when Brazil - having gone through a traumatic phase of rapid inflation, although not quite of hyperinflationary magnitude - started to control inflation by raising real interest rates (nominal interest rates minus the rate of inflation) to some of the highest levels in the world (10 to 12 per cent per year), it’s inflation fell to 7.1 per cent per year but its economic growth also suffered, with a per capita income growth rate of only 1.3 per cent per year. South Africa has also had a similar experience since 1994, when it started giving inflation control top priority and jacked up interest rates to the Brazilian levels mentioned above.

This is because the policies that are aimed to reduce inflation actually reduce investment and thus economic growth.’

Just thought this worth a mention and apologies for taking the thread a bit off-topic with this tangential post.
Click to expand...
I do agree with what you say to a very large extent.
The only problem is we have cost plus Inflation which to make matters worse is imported
If it was U.K. generated, demand pull inflation then yes not necessarily a bad thing as investment is likely to follow to meet the new demands
 
Vic said:
I can see you would align with

"These are my principles, and if you don't like them I have others"
Click to expand...
And that is why they are unelectable and until they take the reality check ie they have got to modernise and get a new image and doctrine to get a majority then they will always be a minority , no matter how bad the population thinks Boris is
 
Yes. But isn't it ironic that the RMT told their members to vote for a certain outcome in 2016, which has ultimately led to this government.
 
halfmist said:
Your saying the same thing.
Getting Government payments means subsidies.
Subsidies are tax payer funded.
As I have said before, if they can stand on their own 2 feet and make a profit good luck to them
If they have to rely on bale outs from tax payers who would love those sort of wages, then it’s a different story.
Click to expand...
you’re
bailout
 
johnnytapia said:
The downside is you won’t get that much needed breather :-)
Click to expand...
I very much needed it tonight after I chased down the daft tw@t who undertook me at a red light by bumping up the pavement and got a 100yd head start on me at the top of the hill. I was so enraged I somehow managed to hit 45 mph on the way down. Caught the f*cker at the lights though and then left him for dead at the roundabout.

Feeling it in the thighs now though. Tomorrow morning might be emotional ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.