The Labour Government

ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Another way of looking at Truss and Kwarteng's mini-budget that I have encountered is this:

1. 'Trussonomics' is a variant of 'Trickle-Down' economics, an economic theory that has never, ever (since the time of Reagan) produced the much anticipated 'growth'.

2. Presumably, it doesn't achieve the desired effect because many companies these days are entirely in thrall to their shareholders. So any extra profits that arise from cuts in taxation and deregulation will be paid to them rather than reinvested in the business to secure its long term future. Since the 1980’s, companies have been put under increasing pressure to deliver higher short-term profits, otherwise they may place themselves at risk of a hostile takeover from a Gordon Gekko-type – character.

3. In addition to the payment of higher dividends, the easiest way for the CEO of a company to enable these short-term profits to be made is simply to cut costs, something that can be achieved by reducing the workforce through redundancies, freezing salaries, lowering overheads (like paying for employee pensions, cutting investment in research & development, and selling off less profitable arms of the business). This ‘slash and burn’ approach was faithfully depicted in Oliver Stone’s movie. And by the time the company gets into trouble, the CEOs who enacted this policy will often have moved on.

4.To convey an impression of how serious this problem is, in the UK, the average period of shareholding, which had already fallen from 5 years in the mid-1960’s to two years in the 1980’s, plummeted to about 7.5 months by the end of 2007. Additionally, between the 1950’s and 1970’s (when Keynesian economic policies held sway), about 35-45% of corporate profits were given to shareholders in the form of dividends. But between 2001 and 2010, the largest US companies handed over 94% of their profits, while the top UK companies gave away 89% of theirs.

5. Tax cuts for the poorest do make sense, as they will tend to spend any additional income they have. The notion of tax cuts also has intuitive appeal because of this, causing this notion to be perceived as 'common sense'. Reform's proposal to raise the tax threshold in their manifesto may have resonated with potential voters for this reason. But any growth achieved by such cuts are more than offset by factors 2-4.

6. The financial markets these days are aware that 'Trickle-down' does not work (as encapsulated by the cover of the book depicted below), and so this is why Truss & Kwarteng's budget went down like a lead balloon.

View attachment 129994

7. So why did Truss support such a discredited theory? The only reason I can think of is psychological: she is an ideologue. Often, converts to faiths tend to be far more zealous than those who grow up in one, as if they have a point to prove. Truss was not always a Tory, so maybe she falls into this category.

One caveat: I am a complete dilettante when it comes to economics and it could very well be that much of the above explanation is flawed. So it is only offered tentatively.

But I thought it was worth putting out there.
Click to expand...
Better than some of the 19th century laissez-farce stuff we get on here.

Plus
8. Corporations as persons. Limited companies, limited risk, limited long-term care. On the face of it, the idea of "limited liability" really should ring warning bells.

 
hilts said:
He could stop some of his best customers from drinking an addictive poison because they were smoking an addictive poison outside I agree.
And then they can drink and smoke outside somewhere else. Fortunately pubs make that much it matters not, phew.

Must be the selfish wankers dragging their kids there propping them up. The non smoking ones.

A lot of landlords smoke though come to think about it. Bloody hell double up chaps he will spend half his time stood on the other side of the road.

Wind permitting.
Click to expand...
It's in the landlord's interest if the best customers stop smoking and live longer.
 
Blue and true said:
Ah but the difference is if someone wants to assault their kidneys with alcohol they're not assaulting anyone else's, are they? And parents don't drag their kids to a pub to get pissed, at least not the ones I know. They take them to the pub for a meal.

And the landlords who smoke probably do so in a private room, no?
Click to expand...
This is ver pick-apartable.
 
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Another way of looking at Truss and Kwarteng's mini-budget that I have encountered is this:

1. 'Trussonomics' is a variant of 'Trickle-Down' economics, an economic theory that has never, ever (since the time of Reagan) produced the much anticipated 'growth'.

2. Presumably, it doesn't achieve the desired effect because many companies these days are entirely in thrall to their shareholders. So any extra profits that arise from cuts in taxation and deregulation will be paid to them rather than reinvested in the business to secure its long term future. Since the 1980’s, companies have been put under increasing pressure to deliver higher short-term profits, otherwise they may place themselves at risk of a hostile takeover from a Gordon Gekko-type – character.

3. In addition to the payment of higher dividends, the easiest way for the CEO of a company to enable these short-term profits to be made is simply to cut costs, something that can be achieved by reducing the workforce through redundancies, freezing salaries, lowering overheads (like paying for employee pensions, cutting investment in research & development, and selling off less profitable arms of the business). This ‘slash and burn’ approach was faithfully depicted in Oliver Stone’s movie. And by the time the company gets into trouble, the CEOs who enacted this policy will often have moved on.

4.To convey an impression of how serious this problem is, in the UK, the average period of shareholding, which had already fallen from 5 years in the mid-1960’s to two years in the 1980’s, plummeted to about 7.5 months by the end of 2007. Additionally, between the 1950’s and 1970’s (when Keynesian economic policies held sway), about 35-45% of corporate profits were given to shareholders in the form of dividends. But between 2001 and 2010, the largest US companies handed over 94% of their profits, while the top UK companies gave away 89% of theirs.

5. Tax cuts for the poorest do make sense, as they will tend to spend any additional income they have. The notion of tax cuts also has intuitive appeal because of this, causing this notion to be perceived as 'common sense'. Reform's proposal to raise the tax threshold in their manifesto may have resonated with potential voters for this reason. But any growth achieved by such cuts are more than offset by factors 2-4.

6. The financial markets these days are aware that 'Trickle-down' does not work (as encapsulated by the cover of the book depicted below), and so this is why Truss & Kwarteng's budget went down like a lead balloon.

View attachment 129994

7. So why did Truss support such a discredited theory? The only reason I can think of is psychological: she is an ideologue. Often, converts to faiths tend to be far more zealous than those who grow up in one, as if they have a point to prove. Truss was not always a Tory, so maybe she falls into this category.

One caveat: I am a complete dilettante when it comes to economics and it could very well be that much of the above explanation is flawed. So it is only offered tentatively.

But I thought it was worth putting out there.
Click to expand...
I can’t see any reason why dividends could not be limited by law.
 
Kompany Car said:
Ever had the feeling that they want to keep people alive longer just so they get a better return on their investment, with this and the smoking ban.

We get people to live longer so they can work longer and we can push the state pension age up to 75.
Click to expand...

All just so they can freeze them to death. The sick bastards.
 
johnny crossan said:
Public sector paybill is current £240bn, a third of spending on public services and 12% of all government spending.
Neglected?
Click to expand...

I'm surprised it's as low as that.

Most public services are people-heavy by their very nature. For example, who wants their kids taught by a robot? Who wants their gran's arse wiped by a robot? Who wants hospital wards staffed by robots? Even if such technology existed.

There simply isn't the same scope for automation as in manufacturing.

Where jobs can be automated they largely have been. When I started at the Council in 1971 there were legions of clerks. One guy, for example, kept the accounts in a massive ledger, all done with pen and ink. There were vast typing pools. All those kinds of jobs have gone. They were gone 20 years ago and had been for years. I'm pretty certain that the Civil Service, NHS and any other organisation you can think of will have done the same.
 
bluethrunthru said:
around 75k deaths per year are a result of smoking tobacco - one person dies every five minutes - not my figures they are from CRUK. Imagine if cigarettes had just been invented and someone proposed to sell something that killed 75k of its consumers annually there would be outcry.

Remember there has been outcries over vapes and possible harm so I don't get what is going on other than because its a Labour Govt proposition its a bad one. Many seem to forget Sunak's proposals on smoking - in the manifesto - was an ultimate phasing out of smoking aiming for a smoke free Britain by 2030. Don't recall Tories outrage at that plan - probably because it came from "their side"

Smoking costs the NHS £17bn per year.
Click to expand...


Tories managed double that with their Universal credit cuts and sanctions
 
hilts said:
There are a lot less pubs nowadays mate, not a little a lot. Anyhow you ban smoking in beer gardens, when does the beer garden start and finish, say there is also a car park there? You can't smoke outside of the pub door, is that 1 foot away 2 foot 10 foot?
Say smokers have to congregate away from the pub somewhat. Let's say like spoons sometimes make you do. So those walking past on the pavement may get the dreaded waft of smoke. Let's say they don't drop dead on the spot:-) and then go into the pub. What's the point.
Hell you might not even have been going in the pub anyhow.

I quit smoking over a decade ago, i don't like the smell anymore and if I'm honest I prefer to avoid temptation even after this long. I can honestly say people smoking in a beer garden or outside a pub has never interfered with me. There is a limit on how much we should interfere in people's lives before the world becomes a very boring sterile place.

People seriously need to get some common sense, they're actual real world problems to worry about.
Click to expand...
I agree there is a limit to how much we should interfere with people's liberties. But stopping them smoking in beer gardens is hardly authoritarian tyranny; banning smoking altogether? That shouldn't happen. Nor should banning alcohol consumption, despite the almighty strain it puts on the health service. Smokers can still enjoy their cigarettes without needing to light up next to others who don't want to destroy their lungs. I don't have children, but if I did and someone lit up next to them while they were eating their lunch I'd consider that person to a thoughtless wanker.

My gran, bless her, used to smoke two packs a day; but she would always go into the garden to smoke away from her grandkids.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It will be far harder to enforce than the current law on smoking which is actually pretty straightforward.
Click to expand...
It would be incredibly hard to enforce. But then you could say the same about many laws. Shoplifting is a blight but we can't station an officer outside every corner shop in the country.

Besides, were it to come into effect I don't think it would be rigid; more akin to the fox-hunring ban. Some knobheads will turn a blind eye but most will abide by it.
 
Blue and true said:
I agree there is a limit to how much we should interfere with people's liberties. But stopping them smoking in beer gardens is hardly authoritarian tyranny; banning smoking altogether? That shouldn't happen. Nor should banning alcohol consumption, despite the almighty strain it puts on the health service. Smokers can still enjoy their cigarettes without needing to light up next to others who don't want to destroy their lungs. I don't have children, but if I did and someone lit up next to them while they were eating their lunch I'd consider that person to a thoughtless wanker.

My gran, bless her, used to smoke two packs a day; but she would always go into the garden to smoke away from her grandkids.
Click to expand...
Did she (our Gran) fight for her right to paaarrrrrrtee.....?
 
Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
Of course it’s bad health wise, but the knock on effect could be enormous. Lots of pubs, restaurants and cafe may end up closing because of this.

Rusholme for instance is full of outdoor shisha bars.

But then how on earth do they enforce it? Large numbers of younger people like to vape now, how do you stop someone using that outside a pub or similar.

Really we should have a choice.
Click to expand...
When smoking was banned indoors we had this crap about every where shutting down , it is nonsense , cigs are cancer sticks and a disgusting habit , smokers are as selfish as fuck , butts on the floor and infecting other people is was sets it apart from alcohol ,it can give you cancer , copd , which costs the nhs billions to look after

Ban it ,it is time
 
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