Strikes take 2

[Firestorm]

I refer this method of bribing voters to that favoured by Labour under Blair/Brown - giving them citizenship.

But new Labour were / are right of centre so thats hardly a comment against the left is it :winking:

 

[Firestorm]

I refer this method of bribing voters to that favoured by Labour under Blair/Brown - giving them citizenship.

Double whammy, it was also an attempt to bribe business leaders to voting for NL by providing them with access to cheap labour

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

But new Labour were / are right of centre so thats hardly a comment against the left is it :winking:

As you can probably imagine, there are very few people in mainstream politics that I consider 'right of centre', and Gordon Brown isn't one of them.

 

[Firestorm]

As you can probably imagine, there are very few people in mainstream politics that I consider 'right of centre', and Gordon Brown isn't one of them.

Yeah but methinks a chart of your centre and my centre would look less like a venn diagram and more like a 6 year olds attampt at drawing Lucy Pinder

He and Blair certainly were not Socialists !!

 

[Neil_F]

I fully agree with you on what I've highlighted above.What I don't understand is why you(and others)feel that teachers and other public service workers should pay a disproportionate share of the price, for what is essentially a crisis created by the banks.

It wasn't created by the bankers. That is a drastic simplification. It was a product of banks, rating agencies and governments.

Do I take it therefore that because the public sector did not contribute to the crisis (by your logic) they should be protected from any financial loss as a result? That logic applies both ways though. As the public sector doesn't contribute to economic growth why should they benefit from it?

Everyone else had paid a price so why should the public sector be protected? The private sector has seen mass redundancies, pay freezes in cash terms and reduced terms and conditions. For example, two years ago I didn't work for a bank, a ratings agency or a government. I had no part to play in the financial crisis. Was I protected from financial loss? No. My employer got rid of 15% of staff, I worked 60-70 hour weeks for 18 months (without overtime) to protect my job. My pay was frozen in cash terms for two years. I lost a huge amount on my pension because I had a defined contribution pension so I bore the financial risk.

The point here is that public sector terms are now considerably better than that in the privater sector. That is bad for the competitiveness of the labour market and the economy generally. It is also unfair.

How about a wealth tax(or Robin Hood tax)to raise extra revenue,for example?

It wouldn't raise any revenue. The EU recently published a study that found a financial transaction tax would reduce long-term growth (20 year) by 1.76%. This would cost £185bn to the EU economy. Still want to introduce it?

That would hit the people who created the crisis hardest.

Ah, but there is this thing called tax incidence, which is who bears the financiaol cost of a tax. For example, PAYE is paid by employers but is pretty obviously borne by employees. Likewise, corporation tax and employer NIC are incident on the employee and lead to lower wages (this has been consistently demonstrated emprirically since about 1910).

A Tobin tax is never incident on financial institutions but on the users. That means that it will be incident on, for example, pension schemes, reduce economic growth and not actually generate any revenue. It will make some economically illiterate lefties happy though.

We know that there is sufficient in the pension pot to pay for public service workers' pensions.

What pot? 95% of public sector pensions are paid out of current taxation.

Why should civil servants and local Government workers etc have to subsidise the general public's share of the debt?

It doesn't work like that. Even if it did you can't expect to be protected from the losses but share in the gains your sector doesn't contribute to.

 

[Neil_F]

If you genuinely want to to improve education, as the private sector and Tories constantly say we need to, you need to create a highly competitive workforce of the most skilled and able workforce. How do you get those people in education?

By introducing competition into the system and allowing schools to set their own terms and conditions. That way good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers are incentivised to get better.

National wage bargaining does serious damage to competition and also distorts competitiveness across the country.

Presumably you're a good teacher, so why wouldn't you welcome setting schools free of national pay bargaining and setting their own terms and conditions?

 

[osymandus]

By introducing competition into the system and allowing schools to set their own terms and conditions. That way good teachers are rewarded and bad teachers are incentivised to get better.

National wage bargaining does serious damage to competition and also distorts competitiveness across the country.

Presumably you're a good teacher, so why wouldn't you welcome setting schools free of national pay bargaining and setting their own terms and conditions?

The fallibly of this of course is education is not a business , its best products are not produced from the same system the business world use and is a continuous life long development that stops (there is no end product) .... well when you die .

And where do you get this idea it wasn't sections of the banking system who caused this ? Their industry made the toxic mortgages , that they knew who to sell to , to make short term profits . The economy is their area of expertose that was mis managed and broken on their watch ?

 

[canveyshrimper]

'We'd like you to become self reliant, here's a virtually free house' - works for me. Didn't work quite so well for Dame Porter.

Or Dame Mandelson if you are talking about dodgy property deals.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The fallibly of this of course is education is not a business , its best products are not produced from the same system the business world use and is a continuous life long development that stops (there is no end product) .... well when you die .

And where do you get this idea it wasn't sections of the banking system who caused this ? Their industry made the toxic mortgages , that they knew who to sell to , to make short term profits . The economy is their area of expertose that was mis managed and broken on their watch ?

There are, last time I checked, at least two parties to a mortgage: the mortgagee (the bank) and the mortgagor (the borrower).

So who is to blame: the mortgagors who defaulted, or the mortgagees who did not?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It wasn't created by the bankers. That is a drastic simplification. It was a product of banks, rating agencies and governments.

I didn't say the crisis was created by the bankers alone.I said it was "essentially created" by the banks.I know it was created by-as you say-
a product of banks,rating agencies and governments as I've seen this.

http://youtu.be/FzrBurlJUNk

"Do I take it therefore that because the public sector did not contribute to the crisis (by your logic) they should be protected from any financial loss as a result? That logic applies both ways though. As the public sector doesn't contribute to economic growth why should they benefit from it?"

In what way does the public sector not contribute to economic growth?
Surely you would agree that schools,universities etc contribute to the intellectual capital of society while hospitals,doctors,nurses etc contribute to our physical well being?
No advanced society can be run without an efficient civil service,transport system,infrastructure investments etc,etc all of which functions are best undertaken by the state.

 

[Firestorm]

The fallibly of this of course is education is not a business , its best products are not produced from the same system the business world use and is a continuous life long development that stops (there is no end product) .... well when you die .

And where do you get this idea it wasn't sections of the banking system who caused this ? Their industry made the toxic mortgages , that they knew who to sell to , to make short term profits . The economy is their area of expertose that was mis managed and broken on their watch ?

They were mortgages when they were "made"
They became toxic when the people who had overstretched them selves in the first place did not meet their obligations

 

[Neil_F]

The fallibly of this of course is education is not a business , its best products are not produced from the same system the business world use and is a continuous life long development that stops (there is no end product) .... well when you die .

And back in the real world, competition in the education sector has raised standards in countries in which it applies (the extent varies).

And where do you get this idea it wasn't sections of the banking system who caused this ? Their industry made the toxic mortgages , that they knew who to sell to , to make short term profits . The economy is their area of expertose that was mis managed and broken on their watch ?

??? You've quoted a section I wrote about competition in the education system and produced the above in response. I didn't mention banks once.

 

[Neil_F]

I didn't say the crisis was created by the bankers alone.I said it was "essentially created" by the banks.

You later said about the FTT

That would hit the people who created the crisis hardest.

So you seem quite convinced about whether the banks caused it alone. Unless you also meant the damage to growth and reduced tax yield as hitting governments as well? You forgot to respond to my comments on the FTT as well. I'm looking forward to hearing why it is such a great idea.

In what way does the public sector not contribute to economic growth?
Surely you would agree that schools,universities etc contribute to the intellectual capital of society while hospitals,doctors,nurses etc contribute to our physical well being?

True, but that isn't a direct contribution. Both sectors are direct costs and spending commitments though that the last government totally lost control of.

No advanced society can be run without an efficient civil service,transport system,infrastructure investments etc,etc all of which functions are best undertaken by the state.

Any evidence that they are best run by the state?

 

[osymandus]

They were mortgages when they were "made"
They became toxic when the people who had overstretched them selves in the first place did not meet their obligations

Actually if you go back to the Bird and Fortune video, the morgates were targeted at American underclass/ trailer trash which was then sold as part of the toxic loans to Japan .

Neil_f , ROFL yes the real world defence ... that same one that is often quoted when people have little understanding of a subject their asked about .
Tell you what lets ask the educationalists on here how well business practices work in educating individuals ? Not as a tool to aide in education maybe but its sole reason to exist ?


The gap is a paragraph which can denote a new subject .

 

[Pubey]

Any evidence that they are best run by the state?

I'm not sure, but they're all textbook examples of where the market would fail.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

<No advanced society can be run without an efficient civil service,transport system,infrastructure investments etc,etc all of which functions are best undertaken by the state.<

<Any evidence that they are best run by the state?<

Spend a little time living in (or visiting) e.g Spain,France and Germany(or the Scandinavian countries) and you'll see plenty of evidence for this with your own eyes.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

>So you seem quite convinced about whether the banks caused it alone. Unless you also meant the damage to growth and reduced tax yield as hitting governments as well? You forgot to respond to my comments on the FTT as well. I'm looking forward to hearing why it is such a great idea.>

(I didn't forget.I was busy yesterday).As I pointed out, anyone's who's seen the Inside Job documentary(or read Stiglitz's Freefall)knows full well that the banks alone weren't responsible for the crisis.They certainly contributed to it though.
I'm a great fan of the Financial Transactions Tax(as was Keynes,who originally proposed the idea).Incidentally,so is David Cameron(albeit to a slightly lesser extent):-
"I'm all in favour of the idea of a financial transaction tax, but only if you can do it globally. And while of course it is a tiny tax on transactions, if the effect is that you just move the transactions to another country, you then lose the tax revenue. The EU keep talking about it, but in the end they know the problem is that even if you did it throughout the EU, the transactions would all go outside the EU."

Contrary to your claims,at least one report suggests that if a FTT was implemented on Wall Street(while it would certainly be unpopular)itwould raise up to 100 billion dolars a year in the US.I saw a similar figure being mentioned on Newsnight(on Monday I believe)for a FTT on the City.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publi...enefits-of-a-financial-transactions-tax/oblem

That is of course, what the EU are trying to get Cameron to agree to, behind the scenes.I don't see any problem with this personally*-it would certainly generate immense revenues which could be used to fund a genuine growth programme.
(*As long as the lion's share of the revenue raised stays in the UK and doesn't end up in the ECB).

 

[the_forgotten_man]

That is of course, what the EU are trying to get Cameron to agree to, behind the scenes.I don't see any with this personally*-it would certainly generate immense revenues which could be used to fund a genuine growth programme.
(*As long as the lion's share of the revenue raised stays in the UK and doesn't end up in the ECB).

So even the EU, who you recognise are trying to persuade Cameron and others to sign up to the FTT, have published forecasts that show the money lost in the European economy as a result of this tax would be greater than the money raised.

3 questions: a) Why would they do this? b) Doesn't this suggest the tax doesn't make economic sense and c) If you could be convinced of the accuracy of the EU projection, would you still want to levy the tax?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So even the EU, who you recognise are trying to persuade Cameron and others to sign up to the FTT, have published forecasts that show the money lost in the European economy as a result of this tax would be greater than the money raised.

Excuse me butwhere is your evidence for this?:unsure:I'd like to read/see it.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It wouldn't raise any revenue. The EU recently published a study that found a financial transaction tax would reduce long-term growth (20 year) by 1.76%. This would cost £185bn to the EU economy. Still want to introduce it?

Any chance of a link to this study?
I'm sure you remember Wilson's aphorism that "a week is a long time in politics." On that basis 20 years sounds like more than a life time.I'm also reminded of a remark by Keynes that he preferred the short term and the medium term since "in the long term we're all dead".