Government Spending Polices and Economic Theories
Following a long and interesting economics debate with GA on another forum relating to climate change, we’ve agreed that it would be better to continue our economics debate in a new forum relevant to the subject of economics rather than climate change; so here’s a repeat of my last contribution in the other forum:-
Further to our discussion, news headlines in the UK today (6th March 2023) seem quite relevant! Video of the report shown on TV News in the UK Today: https://youtu.be/DnZBWW7Jqy0
The news article is a result of a UK ‘Think Tank’ (Centre for Progressive Policy). The Think Tank is funded by Lord David Sainsbury (great grandchild of John James Sainsbury, who founded the Sainsbury Supermarket (food chain store) in 1869). Sainsbury being the 2nd largest food store in the UK. Lord Sainsbury was Chairman of Sainsbury until 1997; and a Labour MP in the House of Commons until he was made a life peer in the House of Lords in 1997.
A lot of what’s in the above video touches on a lot of what GA and I were discussing; so here’s an opportunity to continue that discussion, and or for others to add their two pennies worth!Oh my. A mother complaining about having to spend more time with her children. And whoever would think it is the task of the Almighty State to provide babysitters for everybody? Preposterous. Better to get the government’s hands on your children sooner, age five being too late, apparently. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Obama – all of them strove for the government to raise everyone’s children instead of the child’s parents.
Yep, generally, I would agree with you: In my view it’s in the child’s best interest to have at least one parent (not necessarily the mother) to be at home to look after the child until at least they are of Primary school age, if not Secondary school age e.g. my wife chose to stay at home (as a housewife) to look after our son until he started Secondary school at the age of 11 – then she went to university as an adult student and after passing her degree (graduating) got herself a full time job. Our rolls was reversed later in life when I took early retirement at age 55, to become the househusband while my wife continued working for the next 10 years before taking early retirement.
I say it doesn’t matter which parent should stay at home to look after the kids, and UK law supports that philosophy e.g. in the UK parents are entitled to up to 39 weeks paid parental leave, of which the mother must take at least two weeks - and how the remaining 37 weeks are shared out between the parents is up to them, but optionally the father can opt to take a minimum of two weeks parental leave.
However, although I would agree with you that a parent should ideally stay at home to look after their children until they at least reach school age (aged 5); I do feel that if both the mother and father do want to work (for whatever reason) that preventing them the choice to choose to work is an infringement on their ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘civil liberties’ – rights which should also be valued in a free and democratic society."I do feel that if both the mother and father do want to work (for whatever reason) that preventing them the choice to choose to work is an infringement on their ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘civil liberties’ – rights which should also be valued in a free and democratic society."
A little unsure of that "preventing" part. Who is preventing work, and how? Are you confusing "preventing" with "consequences of actions"?Perhaps I didn’t choose the best word to describe what I was trying to say! It was a bit of a knee jerk reaction in that James seemed to be inferring that a mother’s place is in the home; a 1950s attitude in Britain.
Whereas these days the British attitude is that a mother has just as much right to work (if she wants to) as the father; and should, as far as possible, and as far as reasonable, be given equal opportunity to choose.
if that means that benefits should be restructured (tweaked) a little to make it easier for mothers to choose go back to work while the child is still young, then that’s the direction I was going in.I never inferred anything about "a woman's place in the home." I said the government ought not be in the business of providing babysitters. And I simply observed from some of the women's comments in the video an attitude of "I am being forced to spend more time with my children! BWAAAA!"
Thanks for the clarification; my apologies for misinterpreting your comments.
How successful was Hitler in raising the children?
From Hitler's perspective, and the perspective of any regime (left or right wing), getting hold of children at a young age is all about 'indoctrination'.
This article explains in more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_YouthYea...it's not permernent. Those boys 'indocriminated' with killer weapons were later drafted into the 2nd World War for they destruction. As if that was not enough, Hitler took a second step in raising another set of pure blood that he believes is the best race. What do that lead to? Do ya encourage such in this modern age?
Are you seriously asking me if I approve of National Socialism? Does anybody?
No, nobody in their right mind would; but National Socialism (on the far-right politically) shouldn’t be confused with socialism, which is politically on the left. And for clarity, in Europe, there is a distinct distinction between socialism and communism e.g. communism being far further to the left than socialism in Europe politics (EU & UK).
That is absolute nonsense about Hitler and Mussolini being 'right-wing.' All Academia around the world considered them men of the Left in the 1930s. He considered himself left wing all his life. Mussolini and FDR greatly admired each other. He called FDR a Fascist and both men knew it was a compliment.
It was in the 1950s that Hitler and Mussolini got thrown on the right wing by left wing professors of the Frankfort School at Columbia University
Mussolini considered himself a socialist until the end. ALL Socialists until the 1930s were Internationalists. They wanted to erase all borders. They urged all working men not to fight in WW1 against their working man brothers because they were going to soon erase nationalities. They were citizens of the world, who wanted open borders (no borders). Their international meetings were named: The Internationale.
Their movement was making no headway because Italians liked being Italians, Germans liked being Germans, Englishmen liked being Englishmen, Americans liked being Americans. The big idea of Mussolini and Hitler was NATIONAL SOCIALISM so that Italians and Germans could remain Italians and Germans and yet be Socialists too.
Mussolini came up with the name FASCISM, meaning a COLLECTIVE. Not a small government, individual freedom, checks and balances, subsidiarity like America but a TOTALITARIAN STATE that runs everything from to bottom.
A Fascist is a Socialist. The term 'fascism' was invented by the militantly Atheist Socialist Benito Mussolini to describe National Socialism, as opposed to 'international socialism,' which is what other socialists were at the time, you know, 'citizens of the world' not any particular country.
The NAZIs, the acronym means National Socialists--hated Capitalism. They rose to power with a specifically anti-capitalist ideology. Hitler saw himself as mounting a revolutionary assault on capitalism. Hitler was converted to National Socialism by a speech made by Socialist leader Gottfried Feder entitled: "How and by what means is Capitalism to be Eliminated?" From the start, the National Socialists had in their platform the nationalization of healthcare, education, all industry and retail businesses, as well as capital punishment for anyone caught loaning money with interest (bankers).
The Nazis were ardent Socialists. They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan religion, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, but supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian; Himmler was an animal rights activist.
Compare the hateful, totalitarian and genocidal rhetoric of the Nazis to the values held by conservatives. Conservatives value Christianity, tradition, practicality, commonsense, limited government, a lasting preservation of our Constitutional rights and an emphasis on individuality and liberty. That hardly mirrors the conformist, hateful and dictatorial views of the Nazis or any other left-wing factions. The far-left (Nazis included) has totalitarianism embedded in its very being. In contrast, conservatives are some of the least totalitarian people you’ll meet.
Yes, I do know that American Academia tries to shove the Fascists onto the 'right wing.' And I'll tell you why. Academia self-identifies as 93% Leftists. They noticed that ALL bloody tyrants have been committed Leftists - the French Revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, etc. - and so they thought, well, we've got to make people think mass murdering tyrants can be conservative, too, so let's put Hitler over on the right to balance out the maniacal massacres. Many of those making this decision were Atheist Jews, who themselves are committed Socialists/ Communists but naturally hate Hitler for what he did to their people and hate the thought that Hitler WAS just what he said he was: A Socialist - like them. This is the same place all this nonsense about "Hitler was a Christian" comes from.
The fact is Socialism/Fascism/Communism/Totalitarianism are ALL on the LEFT because all require a massive and Almighty State to implement their plans, whereas any true conservative person on the Right is for individual freedom and small government. A small, limited government cannot do what Hitler did - what Fascists do.
A few words from fascism’s creator, Benito Mussolini: "The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. Fascism is a religion. The twentieth century will be known in history as the century of Fascism."
Both fascism and communism are subsets of socialism. Fascism allows ostensibly private ownership, provided that this ownership, like everything else within the fascist state, is subject to state control. Communism simply does away entirely with the illusion of private ownership.Well, I’ve certainly touched a nerve there!!!
It’s blatantly obvious that we have opposing views on this point; and no amount of heated argument is going to budge either of us to change our views – So a detailed response to your comments would be a complete waste of time (I’ve got better things to do with my time than get embroiled in a wasted argument).
Nevertheless, I shall briefly highlight some inaccuracies in your statement.
Mussolini did not consider himself left win all his life. Yeah, for sure, Mussolini was a socialist during the early part of his life; but his ideology changed over time, and by the end of WWI very little remained of Mussolini the socialist. In fact Mussolini said himself that by 2019 “Socialism as a doctrine was already dead”.
By the time he returned from service in the Allied forces of World War I, very little remained of Mussolini the socialist. Indeed, he was now convinced that socialism as a doctrine had largely been a failure.
Mussolini said he felt by 1919 "Socialism as a doctrine was already dead; and when he came to power he expounded a number of ideas that fascism promoted, such as rule by an elite promoting the state as the ultimate end, opposition to democracy, and protecting the class system. And as Prime Minister, the first years of Mussolini's rule were a coalition of right-wing political Parties.
In 1923 Mussolini passed legislation that favoured the wealthy industrial and agrarian classes (privatizations, liberalizations of rent laws and dismantlement of the unions) – undeniably very hard-right-wing politics.
As regards Hitler, your statement, where you say “From the start, the National Socialists had in their platform the nationalization of healthcare, education, all industry and retail businesses…” is false:
• When they came to power, the Third Reich inherited a highly organized German health system. The Nazis also inherited a populace suffering from a wide variety of illnesses and diseases due to longstanding social and economic inequalities and a series of national catastrophes after 1914. Health did improve after the Great Depression, but the Third Reich worsened public health for the sake of rearmament.
• Nazi ideology was in principle unfavourable to the idea of social welfare. Writing in Mein Kampf about his time spent among the poor in Vienna, Hitler expressed indignation against social welfare for helping the degenerate and the feeble. The Nazis believed that the German race had to be strengthened through a process of natural selection, which required weeding out its weakest elements, so they condemned the goals of charity and philanthropy. They opposed the extensive welfare system of the Weimar Republic for being wasteful, bureaucratic, and helping the wrong people, since it distributed welfare benefits indiscriminately without regard for race and often assisted people that the Nazis considered inferior.
• After the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse, including banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, and welfare organizations. The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible. State ownership was to be avoided unless it was absolutely necessary for rearmament or the war effort, and even in those cases "the Reich often insisted on the inclusion in the contract of an option clause according to which the private firm operating the plant was entitled to purchase it." Albeit, privatization was "applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference”.
With regards to the last point, across the EU and in the UK, right-wing governments to this day heavily regulate and control private industry; far from the Laissez-faire economics that dominate politics in the USA.
You claim that 93% of Academia is leftists; I wish that was the case – but the reality is that there are just as many right academics as left wing.
It seems to me that you strongly believe that all right-wing governments are ‘Conservative’ Governments; which is in accurate because you can get right-wing governments far more right-wing than conservatism.
You also seem to believe that all right-wing governments are ‘good’ and that all left-wing governments are evil? That is not the case, you can get good governments on both left and right; but it’s the ‘extremes’ (on both the left and right) that are bad.
Where you state “The fact is Socialism/Fascism/Communism/Totalitarianism are ALL on the LEFT because all require a massive and Almighty State to implement their plans, whereas any true conservative person on the Right is for individual freedom and small government”. That’s shows your lack of understanding of European politics. FYI, right-wing governments in the EU & UK are NOT Laissez-faire governments; across the EU & UK all right-wing governments heavily regulate, and sometimes control industry, far more than any Government would ever do in the USA. For recent examples, In the UK the right-wing Conservative Government is currently in the process of re-nationalising the railway by 2024 (rebranding it as Great British Railway); and the UK right-wing Conservative Government is also in the process of re-nationalising the National Grid (the electricity grid) by 2024.
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology; as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary is the principal historical dictionary of the English language.
Yeah, communism is a subset of socialism; and so is democratic socialism, often abbreviated to socialism – which causes a lot of confusion with Americans, because far too many Americans seem to think that socialism (democratic socialism) and communism are synonymous – which they are not, they are two completely different political systems.Perhaps it is easy to misunderstand someone when reading text without body language and vocal inflections available. You did not "touch a nerve" with me. And I was not in any way "heated." I was as calm as can be and I do not see where my words are conveying any emotion whatsoever.
I must make one further comment not because you 'touched a nerve' or made me 'heated' but because I am flabbergasted that you wrote, "there are just as many right academics as left wing." That is the stupidest statement I have seen written in perhaps ten years. I say that not to insult just to make the facts clear. I am not the least mad about it.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/only-seve … vey-finds/
https://www.thecollegefix.com/7-percent … vey-finds/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … ives-12-1/OK, you’ve narrowed the statement exclusively to ‘professors’ specifically, and only in respect to the USA; rather than academics in general, and across the EU & UK.
Your first two links are identical, links to ‘The College Fix’, which is an American conservative news website (therefore political biased), and it has been accused of misreporting stories published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The College Fix claims that just 3% of professors in the USA are Conservative.
In your third link, the Washington Times (a more reputable publication) puts the figure at 8%, which is constant with another USA survey (in 2007) that put the figure at 9% for Conservative professors in the USA; in that survey 44% of professors were liberal, 46% moderates, and 9% conservative.
And that is a significant difference between the USA and UK/EU. In all the USA surveys professors were either conservative or liberal (or somewhere between the two); not particularly left wing from a European perspective e.g. in the EU and UK Liberals are NOT considered left-wing, but rather centralists/moderates (in the middle between left and right politically).
For comparison with Europe, The Telegraph (a British right-wing Conservative newspaper, that is respected, and considered a reliable source by all political sides) did a similar survey that concluded that 80% of professors are left-wing in the UK.
But a European Social Survey study in 2019 found little evidence’ for claim universities are ‘left-wing bastions’, albeit it did find that academics more left-leaning than almost any other professional group. The study also found that the notion that universities are “left-wing bastions” intolerant towards conservative attitudes has long been advanced by sections of the USA right.
However, when you include school teachers, and head teachers in the UK you get quite a radical different picture; a picture which I had in my mind when I made my comment. Specifically, in the UK, this is how teachers and head teachers voted in the 2010 & 2015 General Elections:-
UK 2010 General Election:-
• 33% of teachers in the UK voted Conservative
• 33% voted Labour (socialist), and
• 27% voted Liberal Democrats (in the middle between Labour and Conservative.
UK 2015 General Election:-
• 44% of teachers voted Labour (socialist), and 56% of deputy head teachers voted Labour (socialist).
I do believe left wing governments, which include Collectivists, Progressives, Socialists, Fascists, Communists, and any other Totalitarians are bad, yes. The Left was born in the French Revolution as an anti-God movement, which makes it bad by definition.
What historian Jacques Barzun calls the GREAT SWITCH is the hijacking of the term ‘liberal’ since the 1930s. Its meaning has been reversed. Liberal originally meant Individualism - that individuals should be liberated from government interference to do as they please (as long as what they pleased to do was not evil). Liberalism meant ‘the best government is that which governs the least’—the exact opposite of what American Liberals push today: massive regulation, enormous entitlements, gigantic confiscation of wealth, colossal social welfare programs, and a Totalitarian State sticking its nose into every nook and cranny of American life—policing every act done, every word spoken, every thought thunk.
Democratic Socialism is simply socialism by election rather than revolution.
As for your crazy assertion, "socialism (democratic socialism) and communism are ... two completely different political systems." I have had leftist friends try to tell me that Socialism has nothing to do with Communism. In fact, no clear distinction can be drawn between Socialism and Communism. Marx used the terms interchangeably although he also distinguished Socialism as a transitional phase under which the old inequalities would survive even as their foundations were being destroyed, to be followed by a second, higher phase of full Communism, with “The abolition of private property.”
As Vladimir Lenin said, “What is usually called Socialism is the first, or lower, phase of Communist society.” The most widely circulated works of Engels was called Socialism, Utopian and Scientific. The British Communist Party used the term Socialism as synonymous with Communism. The Soviets, Nazis, Fascists, Red Chinese, Pol Pot, and Fidel Castro all called themselves Socialists.
The 1929 Election manifesto of the Communist Party of Great Britain, “Class against Class,” repeatedly uses the term Socialism, and each time Socialism occurs in that manifesto it is as the equivalent of Communism.
Chairman Mao who said he wouldn’t mind if half the people on the planet perished for the cause of worldwide socialism. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia shows us what socialist/communists are capable of as they were prepared to kill anybody and everybody who opposed them.
Communism invariably causes productivity to decline precipitously. Moreover, it causes the people at large to view themselves not as self-sufficient individuals but rather as wards of the state, dependent upon government largesse for every aspect of their well-being. Communism, by rewarding equally the worker and the slacker, kills those incentives. That is why Communist regimes have traditionally relied on deception, coercion, and force in order to put their ideals into action.
“Historical evidence,” writes Richard Pipes, “indicates that the liberties of individuals can only be protected when property rights are firmly guaranteed, because these rights constitute the most effective barrier to state encroachments. The recognition by the state of the right of its subjects and its citizens to their belongings is tantamount to acknowledging limits to state power. And in as much as property is a legal concept, enforced by courts, it also signifies acknowledgment that the state is bound by law.” In short, Communism's primary objective, the abolition of property, leads inevitably to the destruction of liberty and legality.
In order for a Socialist government to enforce the economic equality and ideological conformity that it demands, it must compel people to give up their private property and to surrender their private interests to the state. To achieve these objectives, the government must possess boundless authority over all aspects of national life, including the economy. The administration of such authority requires a vast bureaucracy. Consider, for instance, that by the late 1980s the Soviet KGB was staffed by at least 480,000 people, of whom approximately 250,000 – assisted by tens of millions of informants – engaged in domestic counterintelligence and surveillance.Your concept of Liberalism in the USA pre 1930s is radically different to Liberalism in Victorian Britain. Liberals in Britain in the 19th century were very much in favour of social reform; as opposed to the Conservatives at the time, who favoured conserving the status quo and opposed social reform.
Your leftist friends are right; Socialism has nothing to do with Communism.
ALL your examples of socialism, to demonstrate your point, are ALL examples of communist parties (in various forms) except for the Nazis and Fascists who are right-wing totalitarian political parties – You’ve completely ignored all the socialist parties in the EU & UK who are not communist parties in any form or shape.
In that respect, you have a lot to learn about modern day socialism in Europe (EU & UK).
The main stream socialist parties we currently have in the UK are, as follows:-
• Labour Party:
• SNP (Scottish National Party):
• Green Party: Apparently the Green Party in the USA doesn’t consider themselves as socialists, but the Green Party in the UK does.
• Plaid Cymru (Welsh National Party).
• Sinn Fein (Irish Republican Party): The political wing of the IRA (Irish Republican Army).
SINN FEIN
As part of the Irish Peace Treaty of 1998 (Good Friday Agreement) Sinn Fein now power share with DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) in Northern Ireland: DUP is an extreme right-wing political party, far further left than the Conservative Party, and the exact opposite to Sinn Fein in almost all respects - Sinn Fein being one of the most extreme major left wing political parties in Europe.
SNP
The SNP control the Scottish Parliament with support from the Green Party.
LABOUR PARTY
The Labour Party was created in 1900 by the Trade Unions as their political wing; and to this day the Trade Unions in Britain have a 33% say in the formation and adoption of Labour Party policies, and the Labour Party Leader, and a significant influence in selecting Labour Party candidates in Local and National Elections.
The BIG legacy of the Labour Party was the creation in 1948 of the Social Welfare system that we enjoy in Britain to this day, and the birth of the NHS (National Health Service) in 1948. The NHS being the pride and joy of the British people, even the vast majority of Conservative voters support the NHS in spite of the fact that the NHS is pure socialism e.g. FREEE universal healthcare to everyone at the point of use.
The NHS (National Health Service) with 1.4 million employees is one of the biggest employers in the world.
NHS: https://youtu.be/bDdZCv5v2Rg
So in spite of your beliefs, not all left wing government are bad.
I don’t disagree with what you say about communism, but modern day socialist governments in Europe, like the Labour Party in Britain is nothing like communism. FYI, when Labour’s in power it does not, and has no intention to, enforce economic equality and ideological conformity, and does did not compel the British people to give up their private property nor surrender their private interests to the state – As I said, there is a lot you need to learn about modern day socialism in Europe.
The first meeting of the Labour Party | Origins of the Labour Party: https://youtu.be/dI43gmKD61s
One final question, in your opening paragraph you state “The Left was born in the French Revolution as an anti-God movement, which makes it bad by definition.” apart from the suggestion that the French Revolution happened because of anti-religious motivations is twisting history, but even if it was true, why would being an anti-religious movement make it bad???? It sounds as if on both points you are showing you prejudices against anything that’s not right-wing politics and not religious.
I'm thinking more about Lesborn than European political history.
Those girls at 18 years giving birth to Hitler by having sex with SS Officers, and who were adopted by other parents after the 2nd WW were terrific.
You misunderstood what I wrote sir. What I said was this: "Whoever would think it is the task of the Almighty State to provide babysitters for everybody? Preposterous. Better to get the government’s hands on your children sooner, age five being too late, apparently. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Obama – all of them strove for the government to raise everyone’s children instead of the child’s parents."
In other words I do not approve of the government raising our children or babysitting them and I do not approve of men who do.
TO WHICH you singled out Hitler from that paragraph and asked me if he was successful. I said yes he was. His Hitler Youth program was quite a success from his point of view; quite a success at brainwashing children into having faith in National Socialism.
TO WHICH you insinuated I would encourage the very thing I express revulsion towards.
I find it hard to comment on this one... M personal views are so different. I put my career on hold by choice to be at home and raise my two children. I found working a bit part-time while the kids were in school rewarding. No childcare costs were incurred, due to working around my children's schedules. But again, IMO, some women felt differently about being in the home and taking on the responsibility of children. And I don't think, we ever thought about Government paying for childcare.
It is clearly more necessary that more women work in todays world to make ends meet.
I can't conceive of working extra jobs to pay for childcare. Working more to make sure one can work, just does not compute. So, this literally puts mom or caregiver out of the home for more hours so they can fulfill
their need to work. And the women in the clip appear to feel the government needs to pay for childcare.
Does all of this not spill into more of a societal ideology? Due to more women feeling they want to work, and be productive. However, does this not infringe on raising families, as we have traditionally done in the
past? In the end, one must ask -- do I want to raise my children, or should the childcare centers have a very big part in their rearing?
I guess I am very old fashion. I worked around my children's schedules, and so enjoyed being"Mom". I strived to nurture happy well adjusted children, and in the end, I could not be prouder of my children.I’m with you Sharlee; our personal experience and choices, and that of our friends, isn’t that different to yours.
When our son was born my wife chose to stay at home and be mother and housewife, until he went to Secondary School, at the age of 11; and she wouldn’t have had it any other way.
When our son went to Secondary school at age 11, my wife and a close friend and neighbour of ours (a single mum living across the road from us) who’s youngest was the same age as our son, both decided to go to university (as mature students) together to take a BA Degree in Business Administration Hon. On passing their degrees (graduating) my wife used her degree to get an Admin job in the NHS, and our single mother friend across the road used her degree to become a professional accountant.
With our son seeing his mother study in university while he was studying at Secondary school for his exams, made our son proud of his mother, and spurred our son on into wanting to go to university himself; which he did after two years study at college.
But not everyone is like us; there are women, at least in Britain, who feel the need to work rather than look after their child (for whatever reason); and for whatever reason can’t afford to, or struggle to, without the extra financial help that the published report from the ‘Think Tank’ in the video is asking for.
However, to put it into perspective, a lot of mothers in the UK do already get ‘free childcare’ for their young children; but looking at the Government rules in detail, I think the flaw in the system is that unless the mother is disabled she only qualifies for the free child care if her child is between the age of 3 & 4, and if she is already in full time employment earning at least the legal minimum wage: So the current scheme disfranchises mostly mothers who only want to work part time; plus, if she’s not working, but look for employment, then the added stress of having to get a full time job first and then applying for free childcare retrospectively!
The current rules in the UK are that:-
• If the mother is in fulltime employment, earning at the very least the legal minimum wage and has children between the age of 3 and 4 years old, then she is entitled to 30 hours free childcare from the Government, and
• The Government will also pay her 80% of the costs of any additional childcare fees up to a maximum of £2,000 ($2,370) per year.We have many mom's here in the US and it is not a choice but a necessity to work. I think it would be very acceptable to for the Government to extend some form of free childcare. I think earnings should be a factor.
Yep, ‘means tested’ (taking earnings into account as a factor) sounds a reasonable approach.
Sherlee01, I've take note of your mindset. They're more than 2 sides to the same cone, if I'm allow to introduced my country Nigeria into the equation. Seriously, traditional child care came under the mother, who fulfil the role of 'house wife' than the bread-winning-dad. Going to work while the child/children are minor(s) isn't supported. But with the implementation of the girl-child education, and some of the fair sex (educated or not) goes to work leaving the baby under 1 year to traditional care-takers, or modern day care centers. The dad working in the civil service will be paid child care allowances but this has been scrapped in 1993. Working mothers can now go with full pay while on maternity.
Believe it or not, Sharlee, I did the same thing. Good or bad, today I hardly know any young women who don't go back to work within a few months of having a baby. But I also see them have professional opportunities I could only dream of.
I changed my mind about stay at home moms though when my daughter was left to support a one-year-old and a three-year-old and had to find a profession to support them. It can be done and still raise good kids.
Regarding the 'economics' facet of your video, the question appears to be whether Keynes-type direct government involvement, in the form of funding policies that will (are projected to) produce benefits to the good of society that are worth the price. That price being demanding 'all' pay for benefits for the 'few' because . . . that few will generate a profit for society. (the 'all')
With the caveat that there have been and will probably always be individual instances where such action is necessary without any of the above justifications, hopefully, that is an agreeable starting point.
Just for scale, not specific accuracies, in this case, the 'few' is 100,000 and the 'all' is 32,000,000.
The government is spending $20 billion now and still losing $68 billion in productivity. I don't know what projections proponents have in mind, but surely someone has linked a cost to the asked-for-action. Would $40 billion recover the $68 billion, or only half, still leaving a $34 billion deficit?
Put aside the specific numbers of the question and apply the concept: the government will most likely end up paying nearly what it is trying to recover (optimistic?) to fund something that only directly affects a few—relative to quality of life, with only projections of the indirect benefit to the 'all.' I think it is overly optimistic to claim the benefits of the improved life of this 'few' will radiate an overall benefit to this 'all.'
I know there are reasonable arguments that say the achievement of that betterment of 'societal good' comes one step at a time and issues like this one are just such a step. Leading to the next step . . . and onward. I support that reasoning and it's the argument I would make for an issue I felt warranted it, but I don't think this issue is one of them..
That is my perception of the hard reality of the video's message.
I completely understand the seriousness of this issue—that it can be life-changing for some families and agree that it impacts society as a whole, but one question is whether it is large enough to qualify it to be the government's job to solve it. Or, is it a part of capitalism's market mechanism to maintain itself that can only be managed, not circumvented?
One last caveat. None of my reasoning consciously includes any anti-socialism bias. I think a modern populous society will naturally, and by necessity, include some socialistic-type structures. (ya know, the fire and police counter-point)
How does your preferred economic tool rationalize this specific issue as being 'different'? Hopefully, you will agree that no government can solve every societal ill by throwing money at it, what makes this issue worthy to be a priority?
GAIn essence, your train of thought is logical, and I agree “that no government can solve every societal ill by throwing money at it.” As to your last question “what makes this issue worthy to be a priority?” Well, I haven’t put much thought to it yet, but hopefully, by the time I’ve scrutinised all your points raised in your above comments, I’ll have come to some conclusion as to whether I personally think this issue is worthy to be a priority or not – so in replying to your thoughts should be an interesting exercise!
But first, before I start, for clarity, I would like to point out (if you didn’t already know) that there is more than two main economic theories used by governments; including the following:
1. Supply side economics: Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade.
2. New classical macroeconomics: New classical economics is a school of thought in macroeconomics that builds its analysis entirely on a neoclassical framework. Specifically, it emphasizes the importance of rigorous foundations based on microeconomics, especially rational expectations.
3. Monetarism: Monetarism is an economic theory that focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking.
4. Keynesian economics: Keynesianism is various macroeconomic theories and models of how aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) strongly influences economic output and inflation.
So the point I’m trying to make is that just because a Government wants to spend money on social welfare, such as childcare, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s using Keynesian economics to do so, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that a government would fund such government expenditure by borrowing; apart from which Keynesian economics predominately comes into its own as a mechanism to increase government spending (by borrowing) during a period of recession (economic downturn) in an effort to stimulate economic growth, and classically it would do so through ‘capital spending’ rather than current spending e.g. by building roads, railways and hospitals etc., as a way of creating employment, as a tool to boost economic growth – the advantage of capital expenditure over current expenditure as a tool to boost the economy is that capital expenditure creates long-term assets in the economy.
Getting back to the video in question, for the government to provide extra finance for childcare is, by all definitions ‘current spending’; whereas the ‘Think Tank’ who produced the ‘Report’ is arguing that it should be classified as ‘Capital expenditure’ – the reason being that under the current UK Conservative Government policies there is ‘available funding’ for capital expenditure projects’, but no spare funding for ‘current expenditure’.
But as I deliberately highlighted in my opening statement to this forum, the Thank Tank who published the report is a left-wing (socialist) Think Tank; and therefore, it should be no surprise that the ‘Report’ has a socialist slant to it.
That doesn’t mean that the Report doesn’t have merit, it raises issues that at the very least should be looked at; albeit I doubt the UK Conservative Government will take much notice of the Think Tank’s Report.
However, it doesn’t mean that it will be dismissed out of hand. It’s always possible that a Parliamentary cross-party Select Committee takes an interest, and do their own investigation – It’s the sort of thing that cross-party Select Committees do all the time.
Cross-Party Select Committees in the current Parliament are always chaired by Conservative MPs (Conservatives having the most seats in Parliament) but will also consist of a large proportion of Labour MPs, and usually 1 SNP (Scottish National Party) MP e.g. the SNP currently being the third largest political party in Parliament; so for example a typical Cross-Party Select Committee may consist of 6 Conservative MPs, 4 Labour MPs and 1 SNP MP.
If a Cross-Party Select Committee did decide to take up the mantle, and do their own investigation on the issues of government funding of childcare, they would produce their own ‘Report’ consisting of their own ‘Conclusions’ and ‘Recommendation’, which they would give to the Government; and under the British Constitution the UK Government has to respond to the ‘report’ within a given time ‘framework’. The Government doesn’t have to accept the ‘Report’, but if they don’t they do have to justify their response. However, in Practice it’s not uncommon for a Government to adopt, typically up to 80%, of the Recommendations in such reports – so such ‘reports’ do have a good track record of influencing governments in the UK.
In this reply, I seem to have digressed from specific points you’ve made, but it lays the foundation. I need to brake off here, partly to gather my thoughts further, before getting to responding to your specific points, and partly because I’ve got a few DIY and Housework jobs to do before preparing this evenings meal. But in the words of ‘Arnold Schwarzenegger’ – “I shall be back”.Speaking of "interesting exercise" . . . you are making me work on this one.
To skip a few reps. . . I am familiar with the use of different economic theories in government actions. You're right that the issue isn't simply a matter of following Keynes or Hayek. My condemnation of Keynesian-directed policy and monetary decisions is fueled by my perception that when something is desired to be done, but isn't supported by the 'facts' or capabilities of the other theories you mentioned, Keynesian economics is the go-to rationalization for doing the action anyway. Simplistically speaking, the USA has $31 trillion worth of Keynesian policy results. $31 trillion worth of debt.
Once more, just for scale and not specific accuracy, I recall mentions that our debt is costing us around $600 billion per year in interest-only payments. The point is the increasingly overwhelming cost of that debt.
Relative to economic theories available to and used by governments, we're essentially on the same page. The numbers in your previous daycare costs explanation make a good segway to the specifics of the daycare issue.
"The current rules in the UK are that:-
• If the mother is in fulltime employment, earning at the very least the legal minimum wage and has children between the age of 3 and 4 years old, then she is entitled to 30 hours free childcare from the Government, and
• The Government will also pay her 80% of the costs of any additional childcare fees up to a maximum of £2,000 ($2,370) per year."
As always, relatively and not specifically, consider a workweek to be 5 days and that business-model daycare cost is $135 per kid. I assume your government has a payment schedule that is less than retail (as in our Medicare provider payment schedules) that reimburses at $100 instead of the market $135.
The government pays $75, leaving a cost of $60 to parents. Then, per your 80% additional payments, it pays $38 more, leaving a final cost to parents of $22.
Did I misunderstand your explanation? If not, then the issue is a market manipulation one as much as it is a citizen support one. Governmental market manipulation. The 'market' aspect being the cleaning lady in the video. She's not a mother that can't afford to work, she's the business that can't afford to stay in business.
A free market has mechanisms for that in the real world of what 'is' — survival of the fittest. That isn't a callous selfish perspective, it is the reality of humans and capitalism. If the model doesn't work in the reality of the day then it isn't a good model and won't succeed.
The use of monetary governmental intervention can work when constrained by any combination of the theories you mentioned, but when combinations can't provide justification in contextual reality and Keynesian could-be and should projections are substituted as projected changes of reality it seldom works out well.
Is the daycare example worth that risk? How relatively big is that $68 billion number? The true productivity number used should be the productivity of the involved segment. How much is the productivity of working parents that use daycare? Is $68 billion half or a tenth or even 5% of the total? Risking a cost to all for a 50% increase sounds more likely to be justifiable than a 5% increase.
Considering that the government is already paying over 80% of the cost, and it is not clear how important the desired goal is in the overall picture, I don't think this issue is worth the risk.
On top of that, from my perspective, there are the non-monetary non-financial cultural issues of whether the government should do something, whether the numbers work or not. And they say this isn't a government responsibility. It's a personal one. The government may help, but it shouldn't presume to assume it is its responsibility.
GAYeah, with reference to your first main paragraph, during the 1970s Keynesian economics was overused by Labour, with similar effects to what you describe currently in the USA e.g. Labour trying to support lame ducks in an attempt to keep going and prevent mass unemployment from a failed major car manufacturer at the time (commercially unprofitable). The Conservative opposition party called it a white elephant and made political gain from it, as an example that Labour can’t be trusted with the economy. It was a bitter lesson that Labour learnt, so when they got back into power in 1997 Labour became far more responsible in managing the economy, and proved to the nation that it can be trusted with the economy, which earned them trust, and helped to keep them in power for the next 13 years.
With reference to your next paragraph e.g. the high burden of interest repayments on huge government debts. Yeah, it brings me back to the analogy of how people use and manage their debt repayments on their credit cards. Using a credit card wisely to buy things now, rather than save and buy much later (including luxury items) means being able to borrow within your means e.g. ensuring that the monthly loan repayments (including interest) along with all your other expenditure to pay for essential household bills, living expenses and a few small luxury items, should not exceed your total net income – if it does then you are in serious trouble.
Fortunately, these days (in the UK) banks do put a cap on your credit allowance on your credit card, designed to keep people’s debt within their means e.g. so that with careful management people can’t spend beyond their means. However, some people will flaunt that by getting other credit cards, double or tripling their debt, using the credit from one credit card to pay off the monthly payments on another card – and they soon get into a right pickle; and often end up having to enlist the help of ‘citizens advice’ to get themselves out of an insoluble hole.
How can Citizens Advice Bureau help with debt? https://youtu.be/05MNUQgyOeo
As regards the UK rules for Government support for childcare. For correction, I did make one typing error, where I said 80%, it should read 20%.
15 hours free childcare was introduced by the UK Conservative Government in 2010, just months after they came to power, and 30 hours free childcare was introduced by the UK Conservative Government in 2017.
As the law stands at present, every child is entitled to 15 hours free childcare per week, including people on low income and the unemployed. But to quality for the 30 hours free childcare, and or the 20% grant, the mother must first be in full time employment and earning at minimum the legal minimum wage e.g. the low paid and unemployed are excluded from the more generous scheme (which if it was a scheme that had been set up by Labour and not the Conservatives wouldn’t be the case e.g. Labour would have extended the help to the poor).
How the schemes work in practice, for the 15 hours or the 30 hours free childcare, and the 20% cash payments made by the Government for children aged 3 & 4 is that:-
• In the first instance the parents have to make an application to the Government,
• and on approval the Government gives the parents a ‘code’,
• which the parents pass onto the childcare provider;
• and then the childcare provider uses the code to get paid by the Government.
Therefore, for the free childcare, the Government pays 100% of the costs.
As regards the 20% cash, up to a maximum of £2,000 per year which parents can claim for 3 & 4 year old children. The cash payment isn’t to cover the cost of the childcare provider, the cash is intended to cover extra childcare costs that the parents my encounter?
The way the cash scheme works is that:-
• At the same time a parent applies for the 30 hours free childcare from the Government, and on the same application form, they can also apply for the cash grant; and
• If the government approves the grant scheme the parents then have to create a bank account that is separate from all their other expenses, and is dedicated specifically to childcare.
• Then for every £8 the parents deposit into this special bank account the Government will deposit £2 into that account, to a maximum of £2,000 per year; and the money in that bank account can only be used by the parents to cover additional childcare costs!
Is all that as clear as mud, or does it make sense?
Yeah, I get what you are trying to say in your next paragraph e.g. Government Market Manipulation. It’s an area where we may have some disagreement on because you believe in laissez-faire government, and I don’t – but there may be some common ground where we are in agreement?
It’s not all ‘black and white’ – There are ‘Government Market Manipulation’ and ‘Government Market Manipulation’: What I mean by that statement is that sometimes Government Market Manipulation can be beneficial, and sometime not.
In the UK, where a government gets involved in Market Manipulation, it will not be done on a whim, the decision will be taken based on advice from either ‘Government Official Advisors’, and or recommendations published by a cross-party select committee etc. And the Government Advisor need not necessarily be economic or business advisors, they could be policy making advisors (political advisors) etc.
But any Government interference in the market will be monitored with regular feedback to the Government; giving the Government the opportunity to modify, tweak or cancel their current course of action, if they so wish. In fact, in the civil service I was regularly involved in such feedback in our Government Department; it was called the SOFT Report (Success, Opportunity, Failures and Threats). Once every month a team of us would meet to discuss and update and publish the SOFT report – It was a very useful management tool, and provided a good opportunity for ‘Lessons Learnt’, allowing us to move forward, mitigating against threats, and taking advantage of the opportunities.
Getting back to your point: Yes, under the current economic climate the cleaning lady in the video can’t afford to run her day-care centre for young children because the money the Government pays isn’t enough. But to be fair, under a laissez-faire a private business like hers that didn’t get funding from the Government, would be just as likely to go bankrupt under the current economic climate.
Your next paragraph is where we definitely views; which is fine, we’re different cultures, and what works for one culture doesn’t necessarily work for another culture – which for me makes these forums all the more interesting e.g. a good way for me to learn more about the American culture.
As you know, as a European I don’t believe in a totally ‘free market mechanism’ (laissez-faire); as a European, it’s not just about the money, it’s also about ‘social benefits’, and providing support to the less well off – more of a ‘a problem shared is a problem halved’ philosophy rather than a ‘every man for himself’ ideology. It’s not the ‘money before people’ concept popular in America, but more of ‘people before money’ that’s forms the basis of European cultural values.
I think we are in general agreement with your next paragraph e.g. too much reliance of Keynesian economics seldom works out well.
I think we both agree that the extra help being asked in the ‘Think Tank’ (the basis of the video) for childcare can’t be justified. But in your last paragraph, because of our cultural differences we don’t see eye to eye. Specifically, in American culture, it’s not the government’s responsibility to help - it’s a personal one; whereas in European culture it is considered the government’s responsibility to help.
Getting to the specifics that you raised:
I’ve had a good look at what the current situation is in the UK, and made some sense of the data; as follows:-
• All though it doesn’t make it clear, the video (based on the Report by the Think Tank) is only talking about childcare for children under the age of 2 or 3 e.g. there is government funding for pre-school children between the ages of 3 and 4, and the cost of childcare in the UK for pre-school children over the age of 2 is a lot cheaper than childcare for toddlers.
• Childcare cost in the UK for children under the age of 2 on average is less than £7,000 ($8,300) per child, per year; a lot less than claimed in the video.
• Childcare cost in the UK for children over the age of 2 is on average only about £2,000 ($2,400) per year; and the UK Government pays for that anyway: For mothers in fulltime employment and earning at least the legal minimum wage (for children between the age of 3 and 4 years old) the child is entitled to 30 hours free childcare from the Government, and the Government will also pay the mother 80% of costs for any additional childcare fees up to a maximum of £2,000 ($2,370) per year.
• The £20 billion that the UK Government currently pays for childcare costs (in the above mentioned) is for 3 & 4 year olds.
With reference to your first paragraph; the answer I think is no, there would be no economic benefit to the economy in extending the Government’s existing scheme for 3 & 4 year olds to children under the age of 3. It costs the government £20 billion $24 billion) to pay childcare for 3 & 4 year olds, and it’s reasonable to assume that the economic growth from mothers with children aged 3 & 4 being able to work will be similar to the economic growth suggested if mothers of children under the age of 3 could also work e.g. £38 billion ($45 billion) p.a. Therefore, that being the case, the current Government Scheme would make good economic sense – which seems to suggest that the current Conservative Government seems to have it about right. But with childcare costs for children the age of 3 being three times more expensive, the economic costs/benefits to the economy to extend the same government help to children under 3 wouldn’t be economically cost effective, and for the sums involved, unaffordable for any government under the current economic climate.
Putting aside the economics of trying to government finance childcare for children under the age of 3, so that their mothers would have the option to work; the other issues is the question of what’s in the best interest of such young children, and how does that infringe on the mothers ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘liberties’? Potentially a different debate on the ethics of childcare vs parents ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘liberties’?
The only real area in this, where I see we may have any real difference of opinion, is where you ask: “….but one question is whether it is large enough to qualify it to be the government's job to solve it. Or, is it a part of capitalism's market mechanism to maintain itself that can only be managed, not circumvented?”
If I’ve understood your comment correctly, then basically you’re stating your preference (as an American) that generally such similar matters should be left to ‘market forces’ (capitalism); whereas, as a European, I firmly believe in greater government intervention and involvement in the market e.g. tighter ‘regulations’ etc.As you will see in my previous response, I should have scanned ahead. Your reply makes most of my previous response unnecessary. Fortunately, my closing ties directly to this comment: should a government intervene?
Your final thought nails it. My perspective is that achievement must be earned, yours (generically) is that achievement can be given. My thought is there is a cost to this type of 'gift.' It's only a gift to the recipient, the provision of the gift requires a cost—of some kind to someone. If that cost is paid with tax monies then it is 'everyone's' money that is being used. The recipient gets a freebie.
If 'everyone' (you guys) is okay with that there is no reason for me to criticize it. However, that doesn't make your perspective the provably right one. It only makes it the right model for you.
I think 'capitalism's free-market' structure is the foundation of our societal advancement and betterment. That structure requires participation, the more 'skin-in-the-game' of the participants the stronger the structure.
'You guys' (symbolizing an ideology) are promoting less participation; more somethings for nothings. Even if that works for you it is still weakening the free-market structure that is also your society's foundation.
The cracks start showing when the gift provider starts complaining instead of smiling and reaching for their wallet. Historical example shows the typical steps that follow: from simple election changes to revolts and revolutions.
Sooner or later you're going to run out of 'other people's money' no matter how agreeable those other people are to giving it. Even worse, sooner or later you will run out of people that feel any personal responsibility to their society, and no one left to assume the responsibilities that are shirked.
A priest, a rabbi, and an imam walk into white supremacist gay bar . . .
GAShould a Government Intervene?
Your 2nd paragraph; in summery – everyone pays taxes to benefit the few: Yeah, that is an integral part of European culture, the principle of sharing the cost of a burden so that everyone is given protection; similar to the principle of an insurance policy e.g. if you fall on hard times you have the Government to provide a safety net. But in Europe it extends beyond just helping the needy, social and welfare protection helps everyone to one degree or another e.g. it’s not just about welfare benefits for the unemployed and low paid, every mother (regardless to their income) gets paid by the government for every child they have, everyone who works for at least 35 years gets their ‘full’ State Pension at State retirement age, and everyone in the UK gets free universal healthcare at the point of use (regardless to their wealth) – and everyone, regardless to how wealthy or poor they are can claim disability payment (income) from the government if they are disabled e.g. although we are middle class (and quite wealthy) my wife gets a generous disability allowance from the government of $5,400 per year because she suffers from a bad back.
So I think in the UK is less of the ‘us and them’/the ‘haves and haves not’ than it is in the USA, because in the UK not all government benefits is just targeted to the most needy (worst off) in society, but everyone (regardless to their personal wealth) gets a share of government benefits (freebies) to one degree or another.
Yep, you are absolutely right in your next paragraph. The social and welfare system we have in the UK does suit the British people, it’s a system that’s right for us; and yes, I recognise that it’s a model that wouldn’t work in the USA – Each to his own.
I think, because of our cultural difference, we have a different perspective on your next paragraph; the European perspective is more on the principle that as a society you’re only as strong as the weakest members in society; so by providing the less well off with good education, healthcare, diet and housing you make them stronger and more able to contribute to society, and ultimately a stronger and healthier society. I do appreciate that that view is not in accord with American ideology.
With regard to your next paragraph, I’m not convinced that what you call “more somethings for nothings’ is weakening our free-market structure. In spite of heavy UK Government Regulations on Industry, free enterprise does flourish in the UK – there are over 2,849,000 millionaires in the UK (5.3% of the global share of millionaires), and the UK is the world’s 6th wealthiest country (per capita) – So we must be doing something right.
We seem to be in total disagreement on your penultimate paragraph. In spite of the UK’s generous social and welfare system, the UK’s national debt to GDP ratio is a lot healthier than the USA; and the UK Government has a handle on it to ensure that the UK’s national debt remains under control – the Precise details to be revealed in our annual Government Budget announcement this coming Thursday – which considering the current world economic crisis should be an interesting Budget.The devil is on my shoulder this morning. This conversation has been much too reasonable for a political forum, and, I sense a bit of national pride in your response, so . . .
Rhetorically, was that one-line nonsense closer a paragraph? Is your total disagreement with the 'sooner or later' thought, or the 'cracks showing' one?
Before answering, some more housekeeping: The USA is in a much deeper hole than the UK. There is no standing for me to be criticizing you guys and I haven't been, I have been criticizing the use of policies that facilitate that irresponsibility—Keynesian-reliant economic actions.
You guys appear to be doing a better job of managing the fiscal use of 'other people's money, and, culturally you're okay with using other people's money. Fine, so far. We're not. The reason seems obvious to me — my points throughout — it's the misuse of Keynesian economic theories because they are the only ones that 'might' support the desired goal.
The US would not be in this position (relatively) if not for those theories. However, I think, and sense that you agree, that much of your fiscal structure also relies heavily on those theories.
So, I don't see how you can totally disagree that misuse of these policies will eventually lead to the "cracks" of 'other peoples' resistance and resentment. (the complaining and grumbling)
It appears we agree about the specifics of the Daycare example, so, as one of the 'other people' on that issue, if enacted, would you be smiling when you paid for it (symbolically, of course) if it was the 10th or 20th such new program? (one's like this, that you would disagree with)
As for the "sooner or later," a simple comparison between our nations' numbers provides evident proof that I'm right and you're wrong—you can't reasonably disagree, much less 'totally' disagree, that misuse will eventually lead to running out of 'other peoples' money.
Consider: my perception of our continued misuse of these policies has resulted in a debt ratio greater than GDP. And our government is still proposing more Keynesian-based bad fiscal policy, the most recent example being the president's alleged (if hasn't officially been released) budget plan. (that's another topic)
In short, the 'gift providers' are grumbling and complaining and resisting (electorally). Our fiscal condition shows that 'other peoples' money is getting harder to find—more of a burden on the 'other people'.
With that as one side of the comparison and your (more properly managed? but still beyond recommended norms?) Keynesian inclusions as the other side, the fiscal and cultural trajectory of our example seems obvious proof (along with historical examples?) that one sure as hell can run out of other peoples' money.
What was it that you totally disagreed with?
GA ;-)Yep, it’s very refreshing to be able to actually have a civil political debate on HP; especially considering our opposing politics.
“….a bit of national pride in my response….”!!! Not consciously per se; there are lots of things in the English that I don’t take pride in e.g. the British Empire is nothing to be proud of, nor our historic involvement in the slave trade, or our treatment of the Celtic nations in the UK – and I’m not patriotic e.g. I take no pride in the UK flag, I get more enjoyment in seeing the Cornish flag flying when we tour Cornwall, and was pleased to see as many Ukrainian flags flying high across England as UK flags on our various holiday (vacation) tours of England last year. And I’m not particularly a ‘royalist’ per se, albeit I wouldn’t want to see the monarchy abolished, so I’ve got no pride in the official national anthem; I much prefer the unofficial English national anthem, which gets played more these days at events than the official one (which seems quite ironic for a secular society!): "Jerusalem" (British Patriotic Song) - https://youtu.be/arZAfaa_5J0
But yes, there are things that I do take pride in being British, such as the Magna Carta signed in 1215 being the root foundation of the British Constitution and legal system; that the Industrial Revolution and Trade Union movement started in Britain, and Britain being a world leader in the Renewable Energy Revolution – and that English is one of the most widely spoken language in the world, which really peeves the French.
When I wrote the comment it was in response to the 'sooner or later', although on reflection, perhaps to the ‘cracks showing’ to some extent: However, my comment was based on a misunderstanding that your comments were aimed primarily at Britain; but now that you’ve explained that your comment was directed more towards the USA, it puts a different perspective on what you said – So on reflection I can’t say that I ‘totally’ disagree with you.
This reminds me of sound advice we were given by our English lecturer in college, when I was studying for my English exam: He said “Never assume the other person will understand what mean, try to imagine how would try to explain what you mean to an alien (from outer space, who doesn’t understand the nuances of our culture).
Yeah, I think we both agree that the misuse of economic theories can lead to ‘cracks’ in the economy, which can cause resistance and resentment in society; the emphasis being on the word ‘misuse’.
But it’s not just Keynesian economics that can screw-up the economy if misused; ‘Trickle Down’ economics, which is a part of ‘supply-side’ economics can be just as devastating to the economy, as Liz Truss (our last Prime Minister) so spectacularly demonstrated for the brief six weeks that she was in Office before the Conservative Party kicked her out and installed Rishi Sunak as Prime Minister.
When Liz Truss became Prime Minister on the 6th September 2022 she immediately slashed the top rate tax (for the 1% wealthiest in the UK) from 45% to 40%, leaving a $50 billion hole in the Government finances. The official purpose of cutting the tax was using the ‘trickle down’ economics as a means to stimulate economic growth – an economic theory that hasn’t been proven to be effective in the real world. Because of her actions the international financial markets got jittery (losing faith in the British economy) resulting in the UK Government bonds and the UK Currency both plummeting in value in just a matter of days – threating a number of major pension funds in becoming insolvent because they’d relied heavily on investing in government bonds, which are normally considered secure.
The Bank of England immediately stepped in, giving notice that they would prop up government bonds for 10 days e.g. buy up any surplus stock on the open market; specifically to give pension funds time to sell any government bonds they had, and re-invest elsewhere. At the same time the Bank of England openly criticised the Government in public (which is unprecedented) for using fiscal policy in such a way as to undermine the Bank of England’s monetary policy.
Liz Truss was kicked out of Office by the 25th October, by the Conservative party, who selected Rishi Sunak as Prime Minister. And as the new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reversed Liz Truss tax cuts and put the tax for the 1% wealthiest back up to 45% from 40% - allowing the markets to settle down; and to bridge the debt gap caused by Liz Truss (undo the damage she did), Rishi Sunak reluctantly increased the tax on the British oil companies (gross profits) from 65% to 75%, up until June 2022 the tax on the British oil companies was only 40%, but Boris Johnson (then Prime Minister) add a 25% (windfall tax) on top, bringing the total tax to 65%. In the UK a windfall tax is when the Government temporarily raise the tax on an Industry, such as banks or the oil industry, who are profiteering from an economic crisis.
Moving on: You pose the question, effetely asking whether I personally would be happy to pay extra taxes for Government Programmes that I didn’t agree with: Obviously the simple answer is ‘no’ e.g. I’m not too happy with the UK Conservative Government spending $billions to build the new nuclear power station to replace the old one that needs to be decommissioned because of its age – specifically because I personally don’t believe in nuclear power as an energy source. However, opinion polls show that over two thirds of the British Public does support the building of the new nuclear power station – and in a democracy I’m happy to accept the majority view e.g. you take the rough with the smooth.
A good example of where the gross ‘misuse’ of Keynesian economics will lead is the Greek economy. At the time of the 2008 financial crisis Greece was run by a socialist government, who refused to take advice from the IMF, and tried to spend their way of the crisis using Keynesian, but just dug themselves a deeper hole. A Liberal government took overall control in the 2017 General Election, so it will be interesting to see how the Liberals manage the Greek economy.
But one thread that seem to flow through all your comments is a ‘us and them’ e.g. always talking about governments spending ‘other peoples’ money; whereas, as a European, I don’t see it as ‘other peoples’ money, but rather ‘our’ money ‘pooled’ for the ‘common good’.
So I hope I’ve clarified any misunderstandings?Yes, we've covered Keynes, but your comment about having no national pride had my resident 'devil on my shoulder' halfway to the keyboard before I stopped him.
"Wait a minute," I said. "You just read about the danger of assumptions and misinterpretations. You know that, and, were just reminded of it. And besides, what you're thinking is almost a standard conservative trope, and you know how dangerous they can be."
He isn't listening.
Here is the 'message' I read from your response: You have no national pride because the sins of the past are too black for any atonement, or corrective efforts to right the scales of justice (as you would view them) to ever make you proud of your nation now.
Thinking that must not be right and that I did misinterpret the message, I am trying to think of possible clarifications or explanations that would change my perception. So far, I don't see any.
So here's one bit of that trope. I read your references, e.g. "the British Empire," 'treatment of the Celtic nations,' etc., as negatives that, in your mind, define your nation. For me, an unconditioned "British Empire" is synonymous with the United Kingdom and Great Briton or even just Briton. No connotations.
I am aware of what it means in your usage, but with that understanding, I see it as an act of your nation, not as defining it. No one should be proud of slavery, but I am proud that we don't have it now.
(I can't stop him . . .)
And another bit of conservative trope: In the sense of 'partner:' Do you love your wife? Was she 100% perfect when you met her? Was she 100% perfect when you married her? Is she 100% perfect now? Are you proud of your wife?
I got him, I distracted him with a piece of chocolate.
Surely you do have a bit of national pride—if you thought about it from my perspective, right?
GAYeah I do have a little bit of national pride, which I elaborated on in the following paragraph in my previous post; namely (to repeat) “things that I do take pride in being British, such as the Magna Carta signed in 1215 being the root foundation of the British Constitution and legal system; that the Industrial Revolution and Trade Union movement started in Britain, and Britain being a world leader in the Renewable Energy Revolution – and that English is one of the most widely spoken language in the world”
However, although I was born in England and both my direct maternal and paternal ancestors were all born the South West of England, back to at least 1066, I feel more European than British. Interestingly, in that respect, when a number of years ago I and my family had our DNA done as part of our genealogy the results from Ancestry were interesting:-
My DNA results were:-
• 58% Western European e.g. Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands etc.
• 18% Celtic e.g. Wales
• 9% Portugal and Spain
• 6% British, most prominently from the South West of England.
My wife is half English and half Irish (father from Belfast, Northern Ireland); her DNA results were:
• 40% Celtic (Mainly Irish), specifically from Ulster, Northern Ireland.
• 37% Western European e.g. Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands etc.
• 10% Scandinavian e.g. Vikings
• 7% British
And our son’s DNA results were:
• 61% Western European
• 31% Celtic e.g. Wales and Ireland
• Less than 1% British
Because my wife is half Irish (Northern Ireland) both she and our son have been able to get dual nationality with the Republic of Ireland (southern Ireland); and both are proud to have Irish nationality.
Yeah, essentially, I have little national pride because the sins of the past (and present) are too black for any atonement e.g. the current UK Conservative Government is obstinate in blocking Scotland from holding a referendum on Independence. Albeit, in 2014 the UK Conservative Government did give Cornwall legal status as a legally protected minority nations (Celtic Nation), which in theory gives the Cornish the same legal status for self-determination that the other three Celtic nations have in the UK. This short video, created just a couple of years before Cornwall was legally recognised as a Celtic nation sums up some of the underlying friction between the Celts and Anglo Saxons in the UK:- https://youtu.be/Cmtqn8wANLY
Just over a 100 year (in 2013) 23% of the world population was under the control of the British Empire; most of that Empire has now been lost, but England is still trying to hang onto fragments of it, 14 overseas territories in total, including the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar, so the British Empire is not synonymous with the United Kingdom; and the United Kingdom is not just one country, it’s four separate countries legally bound tougher by international Treaties. When England ruled Ireland it treated the Irish as 2nd class citizens, giving them no land rights Ireland e.g. land in Ireland belonged to the English and was farmed by the Irish on behalf of the English – So not surprisingly with the English supressing the Irish it was no surprise that the Irish eventually successfully rebelled against the English in the 1920, which led Ireland breaking away from England (by force) and gaining its independence (The Republic of Ireland).
Does that help to clarify my level of national pride?
In answer to your last question, in relation to my relationship with my wife:
• Yes I do love my wife – it was love at first sight.
• We’re a near perfect match, so we’ve always got on very well to gather, and still do.
• We’re both very placid amenable people, with similar tastes and views etc., so we find it very easy to discuss and agree on matters.
• And yes I am very proud of my wife.
In fact when we both did a detailed personality survey, we both turned out to be almost identical e.g. classic introvert, co-ordinating supporter.We need a new topic. That you feel a past sin can never be atoned for leaves me nowhere to go.
I knew the 'wife' segment was risky. It appears I was right. I did not intend to intrude to the level of your explanations. The questions were posed as absolutes—simple yes or no, 100% or not 100%. Your explanation shows it didn't work. Mea culpa.
GAI’m not saying that past sins can never be atoned for; if it was just a question of past sins, such as Bristol’s role in the slave trade, then of course there would be scope to make amends; and to a large extent England have attempted to; a large swathe of what was the British Empire is now the Commonwealth, and (with a few exceptions) the Commonwealth countries have a lot of respect and patriotism for Britain e.g. Australia (and other Commonwealth countries) incorporate the UK flag into the design of their flag, and the King (King Charles III) is still Head of State in most Commonwealth countries, including Australia. In the Australian Republic Referendum of 1999 60.66% of Australians voted for Australia to remain a Monarchy with the UK Queen as the Head of State.
In contrast, the heir apparent (Prince William and Kate) meet a barrage of anti-royalist protests from indigenous people during their tour of Caribbean tour last year; and in 2021 Barbados abolished the Queen as Head of State, and became a Republic.
But it’s not just past sins, it’s also current sins e.g. in theory the Celtic nations have the legal right of ‘self-determination’, and to a large extent they do; but the current UK Conservative Government is being antagonistic towards the Scots in particular, thwarting their attempts at every level (usually through the courts these days).
Getting on my ‘high horse’: Examples of the friction between Scotland and England:-
1. On 22nd December 2022 the Scottish Government pass the ‘Gender Recognition (Scotland) Bill’ The changes to the law in Scotland that the Bill introduced was to reduce the minimum age a person applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate from 18 to 16, and to remove the need for a medical diagnosis and evidence of having lived for two years in their acquired gender.
On the 17th January 2023 the UK blocked the bill from receiving Royal Assent.
2. 28th June 2022 the Scottish Government approved holding a Scottish Referendum on Independence on the 19th October 2023; In November 2022 the UK Government blocked it through the courts.
3. The minimum voting age in England is still 18, in Scotland it was reduced to 16 in 2015; and in Wales to 16 in 2020.
4. The one I like the best, which shows how much the Scots dislike the English: Is that prior to 1998 university was free to all (no fees); in 1998 the UK Government introduced university fees across the UK, except in Scotland, where the Scottish Government refused to endorse the Legislation. So not only is university free in Scotland, its free in Scotland for all EU & UK citizens, except the English who have to pay.
But it’s not just the current friction between England and Scotland, and England and Northern Ireland, the other things of shames these days, as a nation, is the UK’s Government contempt of International laws since 2019 (when it suits them) e.g. in respect to immigration laws, and the 1998 Irish Peace Treaty (Good Friday Agreement). Government’s willing to blatantly break international laws doesn’t bow well for the integrity and reputation for that nation on the world stage – it’s nothing to be proud of.
Further to our discussions on the UK’s Government’s level of support to mothers for childcare; it seems that the ‘Think Tank’ report published by the left-wing (socialist) Think Tank (the topic that started this forum) may have had some influence on the Conservative Government after all?
Although UK Government Budget announcement for the next financial year (6th April 2023 to 5th April 2024) isn’t until Wednesday (15th March); Yesterday, the Government let it be known to the news media (spoiler) that in the Budget there will be measures to help low paid mothers with childcare costs as a means to encouraging more of the 700,000 mothers with young children to go back to work – as part of an overall strategy to try to boost economic growth – the precise details of their plans will not be revealed until this Wednesday – So it should be an interesting budget. https://youtu.be/CSG0ISK013w700,000 is a new number detail. Is it the total number of UK's working moms or a segment of that 700,000 that can't afford daycare? Is the 'new' budget plan addressing 700,000 or a subset of 700,000?
Where is the new money coming from? Is it from a budget squeezed or a new money injection?
GALooking at available reports it seems that the problem isn’t that mums, especially mums on low income, can’t get the help they need from the Government to be able to work; it’s that the level of help they get isn’t sufficient to enable them to work.
Recent surveys show that about 50% of mums in England “would prefer to work if they could get the childcare they need”.
From what I can gather the 700,000 seems to be the number of mums not working; for what it’s worth, currently 65.1% of mothers with children aged between 3 & 4 are in full time employment.
Other data I’ve got from the Government websites includes:-
• 1.2 million Children (poor families) receiving 15 hours free childcare: 92% of all eligible in this group.
• 348,100 Children (parents on higher income) receiving 30 hours free childcare.
At this stage I can’t say how the Government will be raising any extra new money to fund this; that will be revealed in the UK Government Budget on Wednesday.
So I should have a better picture in a few days.Your mention of "higher income" moms getting free daycare hours caused a pause. Our programs are means-tested, so my reasoning starts there. Then I recalled that yours, generally, aren't means-tested. That makes my 'reasoning' not so solid.
Because of the presented logic behind this push, and the smallish segment it will benefit, I still think it fits my criticisms of Keynesian-only policies, but that might not be a bad thing for you guys if your financial structure isn't stressed by it. Ours is.
GAThe reason that ‘higher income’ mums benefit more is that the 30 hours ‘free childcare’ was introduced by a Conservative (right-wing/capitalist) Government in 2017 e.g. if it had been introduced by Labour (left-wing/socialist) Government then it would have favoured the less well-off more (British politics).
To recap: Ine 2010 the Conservatives/Liberal coalition Government first introduced 15 hours free childcare to all mums with 3 & 4 year old children (2 year old children, if the child is disabled); regardless to wealth e.g. not means tested - which gives mothers the opportunity to work part-time if they so wish.
The 30 hours ‘free childcare’ opens up opportunities for mums to work full time, if they so wish; but to qualify for the 30 hours free childcare the mother must already be in full-time employment, and earning more than the legal minimum wage; which creates a barrier to mothers not already in full employment; ‘chicken and egg’ scenario.
The main reason behind the current Government’s train of thought in respect to childcare in tomorrow's Budget, is the economy. Specifically the two biggest concerns to the UK Government is ‘high inflation’ (10.1% last year) and lack of economic growth (economic growth last month was just 0.3%).
So the UK’s Government’s Budget tomorrow will be designed to put downward pressures on inflation, while at the same time trying to stimulate economic growth – a tricky combination.
As a backdrop, which the Government needs to take into consideration in its economic policy is that currently unemployment is very low (only 3.7%), but we also have a chronic shortage of labour in the UK which is hampering economic growth:
• Currently 1.27 million unemployed in UK.
• Currently 1.16 million job vacancies in the UK.
There’s chronic labour shortages in all commercial, business and industrial sectors across the UK, including but not exclusive to a chronic labour shortages in the NHS, lorry drivers, bus drivers, agriculture and leisure and tourist industries, and manufacturing etc.
For example in the NHS there are currently over 132,000 job vacancies, which includes a shortage of just under 39,000 nurses.
So tomorrows Budget will be aimed at trying to address some of these issues.Arthur, couldn't the unemployed fill up the vacancies, or is a lack of finance(budget) militating?
I am thinking the UK Labour-Conservative government is capitalistically strong to tackled unemployment. Much thanks.Good question, but no; in a lot of cases it’s the skills gap that’s the problem e.g. not everyone are suited to being a nurse, apart from which, in the UK, it takes three years of study at university to become a fully qualified nurse.
University life as a student nurse in the UK: https://youtu.be/1DsmbBOlj84
And at the other end of the skills scale, to become a lorry or bus driver requires expensive training to pass your HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) or PSV (Public Service Vehicle) driving licence; and not everyone is suited to being a lorry driver or bus driver:
How to Get Your HGV License in the UK: https://youtu.be/mfT-tFPF3mw
How to get a Bus/Coach Driving Licence in the UK: https://youtu.be/X4NzZ1QXbmU
And when it comes to the British, few Brits want to be stuck in fields attending to and harvesting crops in the British weather, we Brits would much rather that someone else did that?
Given that currently in the UK we have:-
• Hyperinflation – 10.1% in 2022
• Near stagnation (economic growth only 0.3%)
• Low unemployment (3.7%): 1.27 million unemployed.
• Chronic labour shortage: 1.16 million job vacancies.
What would you do, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, if you were setting the UK’s Government Budget tomorrow (15th March)? It might be interesting to compare your thoughts with what actually happens in tomorrow’s Budget.Without knowing the 'whys' behind the problems I don't have a clue what I would do. I don't have the experience or economic training to even have a starting point to build an opinion of specific actions to take.
I would bet there are many politicians that are equally unqualified, but they have the benefit of advice from folks that do have the needed qualifications. Whether they use or listen to such folks is a different matter.
Conceptually (by the economic theories and cultures involved, as we have been discussing), I would give it a go if I knew some of those 'whys,' but I don't so I won't.
GAFair point:
I can shred so of the whys:
#1: Hyperinflation, the three main causes are:-
• Pandemic.
• Brexit.
• War in Ukraine.
#2: Near stagnation; predominately Brexit e.g. Exports to the EU (our main trading partner) has become far more expensive, and bureaucratic and time consuming.
#3: Low unemployment; predominately Brexit e.g. current Government’s tight immigration law.
#4: Chronic labour shortage; Brexit e.g. Government immigration laws preventing foreign workers from taking up the slack in the labour market.
In simple terms: Hard-right-wing nationalism.
Yeah, the Government does have its economic and business advisors (and other policy advisors); and generally they do listen to them – with some notable exceptions:-
• Theresia May isolated herself from the outside world, only listening to two personal (political) advisors from 2016 to 2017 with disastrous results to her party; forcing her to sack them in June 2017, and to start listening to professional advice. https://youtu.be/vc4Eq95w18E
• Boris Johnson made the same mistake from 2019 to 2020, with listening to only Dominic Cummings, who had a fascination for Dictators. In fact during the pandemic Dominic Cummings commented that if he had his way he would have put a dictator with kingly powers in charge of the government handling of the pandemic? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 … 10-reports
Fortunately, Boris Johnson stopped listening to Dominic Cummings over the pandemic; which led to a friction between the two, and Boris Johnson eventually sacking Dominic Cummings; quickly followed by Dominic Cummings viciously attacking Boris in the media.
The UK Government’s Budget announcement starts in just 4 hours; but yesterday the Government gave clearer indication to the News Media of what will be in the Budget – And looking at the preliminary details it appears to me that the Government, pancaking about the next General Election in just over 18 months, is scraping the barrel:
Opinion Polls indicate the current UK Conservative (capitalist) Government are on course for a humiliating defeat at the next General Election; and Labour (socialist) are on course for a landslide victory – which would please me.
The UK is suffering a chronic labour shortage, which is hampering economic growth. But rather than loosen it’s ‘tight’ immigration laws, which Business have been pleading with the Government to do since Brexit; this Budget will be designed to try to encourage the following groups into work:-
• Mothers with young children; as young as 1 & 2 year old.
• The disabled.
• People with long term illness, and
• People who have taken early retirement, to come out of retirement and back to work.
The Budget costs will include an additional £4 billion on childcare, which is also likely to include increasing the payment to childcare providers, to more closely match costs, so childcare providers can afford to run their business.
The Budget is also likely to include £5 billion increase in Defence Spending, due to the war in Ukraine.
And in answer to your question of where is all the extra money coming from; it appears that the Government will be increasing Corporation Tax (tax on businesses) from 19% to 25%; so the Business Sector (Industry) will be footing the bill.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 … in-englandThis link provides the UK Budget 2023 key points at a glance, along with useful political analysis to help put it into perspective.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 … key-pointsThe daycare monies part seems to be getting a lot of attention. One headline said it was the biggest government 'investment' in childcare, ever.
It also seems like the cost to parents is the secondary problem, the first being the non-profitability of a daycare business at government-reimbursed rates. You have the demand but not the supply. The government's action seems to address demand more than the supply problem.
Giving more free hours to parents doesn't help if there are no facilities to offer those hours. In browsing, I saw one note that the new funding to providers increases by 30%. That sounds like an impactful amount. Could it be enough to make the business profitable enough to encourage new providers?
Also, if the program must be funded in yearly step-up increases (full implementation in 2025?) due to funding constraints, it seems addressing the supply side of the problem should be the priority.
GAYou've said it all, so there's not much I can say, or add:
Yes, day-care seems to be getting a lot of attention; although I’m sure it’s not the biggest issue facing the UK Conservative Government.
Yep, you’ve spotted the flaw in the system; demand outstripping supply. And the day after the budget the UK Government admitted that there are not enough childcare facilities and staff to meet the increase in demand for childcare places that their Government policy will generate. And the Government went onto explain that it will be prioritising its efforts in increasing the number of facilities and staff; but it has to be profitable for the suppliers, and that’s going to take time and money to make the system commercial viable and to recruit extra staff.
And as you spotted, the logistics of making it happen, means that it’s not going to happen overnight, but not be fully implemented until 2025 (After the next General Election). So, ironically, if the Conservatives loss the next General Election (late next year) they’ll have done the ground work for a social policy that fits nicely with the Labour Party (socialism).It surprised me that the United Kingdom Conservative-Labour government, despite the many many questions in it's saddle will get to such a position to take care of Day Care. Centers. In Nigeria, my country its a private business and the government will not donate 1/4 of a penny to such a care center, come high or low water. Humanitarianly, as the case may be, does the current conservative labour government enbark on this venture to garner votes in the next general elections? Or is it a constitutional challenge to the traditional 'we care' question?
Yeah, for different reasons e.g. Conservative is right-wing capitalist politics and Labour is left-wing socialist politics.
From the Conservative’s view point; the UK is currently suffering a chronic labour shortage because of Brexit e.g. strict immigration laws – And with up to 50% of mothers with young children wanting to work, if they could afford the cost of childcare; the UK Conservative Government are trying to tap into that labour source by trying to make childcare affordable and available for mothers with young children so that those mothers who want to work, can work.
While from Labour (socialist) view point; making childcare affordable and available for mothers with young children, regardless to whether they want to work or not, fits in well with socialism. Not just for the benefit of the mother but also for the benefit of the child e.g. pre-school education at an early age, to help give young children social skills and prepare young children for school life.
The main difference between the two politics is the approach e.g. the Conservative policy for 30 hours free childcare is that only mothers who are already working and earning at minimum the legal minimum wage; which disenfranchise poorer families - egg and chicken situation, where a mother can’t afford childcare because they don’t quality for Government help until they’ve got a job; and they can’t afford to get a job until they’ve got the Government help to pay for childcare! Under current rules, mothers who are not working are only entitled to 15 hours free childcare for their children.
Whereas, Labour would extend the 30 hours free childcare to all parents, regardless to their income; which would greatly benefit poor families.
In the UK it is common for both right-wing capitalist governments and left-wing socialist governments to pursue similar policies – the difference is in their approach e.g. Conservative government social policies tend to benefit the wealthiest more, at the expense of the poor; while Labour government social policies tend to benefit the poor more, at the expense of the wealthiest. In simple terms, the ‘devil’ is in the details (fine print in the political policies). A prime example of that is that whenever Labour are in power they always increase the income tax for the 1% wealthiest by 2% - and when the Conservatives come to power they always reduce the income tax for the 1% wealthiest by 2%.As regards your last point “does the current conservative labour government embark on this venture to garner votes in the next general elections? Or is it a constitutional challenge to the traditional 'we care' question?”
With respect to the current Conservative Government, it partly due to the fact that we currently have a chronic labour shortage, and the Conservatives see mothers with young children as a potential labour resource, if it can be facilitated for those mothers who wish to work to be able to do so e.g. by making childcare feasible and affordable.
But also, the next Generation Election is only just over 18 months away, and currently all the opinion polls are showing that unless the Conservatives can improve their rating with the public significantly over the next 18 months then the Conservatives are heading for a humiliating defeat – So yes, part of their policy to provide free childcare to pre-school children is to garner votes.
As regards Labour (socialist) party; it is more of a ‘we care’ attitude.Be that as it may, I greatly applaude and laud your socialist-labour government. Thank you.
Thanks, yep, I shall be voting Labour in the next General Election in 2024; although for the local government elections (in Bristol) in 2024, we're thinking of voting for the Green Party.
Your preference for socialistic programs opens the door for a tangent about France's current protests.
My media-formed perception of the retirement issue is that Pres. Macron pushed through the change because the country could not afford the current system. His position echoes our Social Security issue. Our SS program is also running out of supporting income. Dates of the coming undeniable insolvency have been projected, yet our politicians refuse to address it. They refuse to make the hard decisions because they are unpopular.
It looks like France's problem is similar—the program is unsupportable without change.
If that is true—that the hard facts are the program can't be sustained as structured, I think Pres. Macron should be applauded instead of crucified.
GAYep, there was a similar problem in the UK - because people are living longer:
In 1908, when State Pensions were first introduced in the UK, the State Pension age was 70, it was reduced to 65 for men, and 60 for women in 1940.
• In 1960 the life expectancy of a male in England and Wales was just 66.4, and 71.5 for women
• In 2011 it was 79 for men and 82.8 for women.
• Current Government predictions are that by 2070 this will increase to 87.3 for men and 90.2 for women.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation … 2015-09-09
In the late 1980s the UK Conservative Government was taken to the European Court of Human Rights because its retirement policy discriminated against men. Therefore, to comply with the European Juridical Law the Conservative Government raised the Retirement age for women to 65; phased in overtime, in steps, so that by 2018 all women retired at 65 - so that both men and women now retire at the same age. The reason it was phased in slowly, rather than all a stroke, is because of the law of ‘Legitimate Expectation’ e.g. if a woman was planning for retirement at 60 and the Government raised the retirement age to 65, that would deny the woman of their legal entitlement to ‘legitimate expectation’ of retiring at 60.
In the last 12 years, because people are living longer the Conservatives have gradually increased the retirement age from 65 to 67 (as of this year), the same State retirement age as Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Norway and the USA.
In France the current retirement age is only 62, and President Macron, using Executive powers e.g. by bypassing Parliament, is trying to raise it to 64; which is still well below many countries in Europe.
So in relation to some European countries, the French have it ‘good’ - even if the State retirement age is increased to 64; albeit, there are still some European countries where the State retirement age is still 62 or lower, although most intend to slowly raise their retirement age e.g. Malta intends to raise its retirement age from 62 to 65 by 2027.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_in_EuropeArthur, this is really enlightening. As a retiree from the Nigerian State (Rivers) government, I knew how the English pension related to the Nigerian system many decades ago, as Nigerian evolved and transisted through the British Constitution. 5 years ago, retirement age was modified again from 60 to 70 years, and for Judges its 80 as long as you're fit, strong, and healthy.
I drop into this discussion a little late, but allow me to add my thoughts on economy theory and this childcare issue in particular.
For the start, we have a similar situation in Germany. Underfunded toddler and preschool care facilities, low pay for child care workers and thus understaffed personal problems in cradles (for toddlers) and kindergartens (for preschoolers).
First thought: In the video the gender pay gap was addressed somehow in conjunction with low pay for the staff and for women not participating in productivity . Well - isn´t high pay linked to productive industry, to be productive for society? And who was playing with "productive" concrete mixers and the Bosch toy drill? Boys.
This is preconditioning, socialization in a very early stage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization
Girls play with dolls, run after gymnastic rings, boys do the "heavy - productive - work" with the Bosch toy and play football.
May be in the video it was displayed unintentionally, but this early stage conditioning is not helpful in solving the childcare issue.
Childcare and pensions and health care are social contracts between all members of a society. Every contract is a trade bargain between opponents, supposedly for the benefit of both sides. But don´t change the underlying conditions over time? Doesn´t this create the issues that this discussion is about?Very valid points: I think the gender distinction you noticed in the video (which was very subtle) I think was unintentional; but it certainly is something we need to continually focus on in society, so as to minimise as much as possible:
For example, when I was in secondary school, for the first three years, until we decided which subject to focus on for our final exams and qualifications, I was taught woodwork and metal work. Woodwork I enjoyed, and it’s become one of my main hobbies e.g. I have my own workshop at the end of the garden, and I do all the DIY around the home. However, I never took to metal work, it didn’t appeal to me; I would have been far happier if I had the choice of ‘domestic science’ instead e.g. my mother taught me to cook at the age of 10; and now I do all the cooking at home, instead of my wife – and when I too early retirement at age 55 (7 years before my wife took early retirement at 60) I was the full time househusband for 7 years, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
Notwithstanding the above, I was however taught to sew and knit at primary school, both of which I enjoyed, and if it wasn’t for the fact that knitting and sewing are my wife’s hobby, I could easily have taken them up as hobbies myself; especially the sewing – but I haven’t because I would be treading on my wife’s toes. However, our closet family friend main hobbies include photography (my son’s profession), woodwork and cooking (my hobbies) and sewing (my wife’s hobby); so he has common interests with me and the whole family.
One skill I taught myself as soon as I left school, in the days when only women were expected to type, was to touch type professionally – 60 words a minute: A skill that put me in good stead for the 3rd Industrial Revolution a couple of decades later (computers), when typing pools disappeared and office staff had to start using a keyboard, and type their own letters.Arthur, with great respect, you must be a truly universal gentleman.
My point about gender gap was only to be understood as an example for preconditioning and socialization. And this is a general topic, not limited to the gender issue.
I was socialized in my youth in a totally different way than my living situation today would expect. I was raised with scarce financial means. It was not seen necessary to spend money on costly sports like horses, playing tennis, or golf, or sailing, or you name it. So i never did it. No theater season, no attending the German version of "Last Night of the Proms", you understand what i mean.
Only until i met my wife i found out about this strong preconditioning at early age. My wife was from another country, with different social and academic background and i slowly began to realise what scars and traces socialization had left in me.
This early preconditioning in the family decides how you see society. It already starts with the name you are given. It determines whether you see yourself entitled for financial benefits or if you understand you have to work for money and there is no free lunch.
Few people can question their social role model and initiate change. For me it was almost too late, most will never question themselves.Yep, absolutely, I do understand what you mean; I had a similar experience as you describe:-
Until the age of 10 we lived in a condemned slum, no water or sewage in the house (just an outside tap in an outhouse for cold water); no sewage, and no gas – just electricity. I remember well the weekly bath, in a tin bath topped up with hot water from the kettle, in front of the coal fire. At one point we lived on just nettle soup for two week (which I remember well), and we could never afford any holidays. The only luxury was the TV, with my favourite weekly programme be Dr Who on a Saturday.
When I was 10 my father landed himself a good job as a Head Gardener for a manor in a small village just 25 miles from Bristol; the job came complete with a tied house (rent free house with the job), and a large weekly supply of free eggs from the Lord of the Manor – A complete contrast.
So I didn’t have my first holiday (vacation) until I was 13; a week’s holiday in a tent on a camping site in the Gower Coast, Wales – A new experience. When we got to the area, and looking for the campsite, we stopped to ask a kindly middle aged gentleman for directions; which he gave us – but, and chatting to my mum, an on learning that it was my birthday, the gentleman gave me a 2-bob coin for my birthday (2 shillings/£0.10), and as he did he said “never say a civil servant isn’t civil” (a comment that stuck in my mind) – little was I to know that 3 years later I myself would become a civil servant.
2-bob was a lot of money in those days; from the age of 10 I use to get a half crown for my weekly pocket money (two shillings and six pence/£0.125), and for that I used to catch the bus from our village to the nearest town on a Saturday to go the cinema, buy chocolate to have with the film, buy a bag of chips (potato fries) and catch the bus home, and still have change from 2-bob.
Of course, when I became a civil servant, it was another major ‘socialised’ shift in my life; from a lower working class family to middle class. For the first time I could afford all the luxuries that we couldn’t have when I was a child.
Two important points my deprived youth imprinted on me are:-
1. An appreciation of everything in life; the beauty of flora and fauna, wildlife, nature, holidays, the food and clothes that we have, household goods and furniture e.g. recycling and upcycling in preference to a throw away and buy new attitude.
2. That there are more important things in life than money.
I’m proud to have come from lower working class to middle class e.g. I’m proud of my childhood background. I think to a large extent, it’s my experiences (socialised) in childhood that has made me a staunch socialist.
True, most will never question themselves. Having said that; my wife’s sister’s husband had a not similar childhood to me e.g. he was brought up in a lower working class family, living in a council house; and when he left school, also became a civil servant. But, unlike me, he’s not proud of his working class background, and tries to hide it e.g. a typical British snob. So I guess that preconditioning and socialization isn’t a straightforward subject e.g. it used to be said that 50% of ‘who you are’ is your upbringing and 50% your genetics?
Certainly. The kindergarden thing is a big question in Nigeria. Seriously, if you can't afeort it, because it's very expensive, you look dor a nanny to take care of your kid(s). Critically, the kindergardens are more expensive than the pre-school(pre-nursery) and nursery schools. So if you can't afford it, you kind of look for a nanny sitter in your neighbourhood for the kid(s). Critically also, the pre- and nursery schools are operated by government and private body. Both are costly. But the low income earner will do everything to see that their kids pass through the schools.
It's a pity that Liz Truss fell so suddenly on coming to power as Prime Minister of England. I hope her party still honour her in the meantime or current time. Back then I was much concerned about Queen Elizabeth death and burial, and also in the mood of writing a story and and two on the Queen's demise. At that time, we're discussing the Triclle Down economy and what Liz did that lead to her fall. In reality, government spending via, tax and other sources will depend on many factors. The most important will be the rate of money in circulation in the economy.
I’m not sorry that Liz Truss only lasted 6 weeks as Prime Minister. Although she was a Liberal in her early life, she defected to the Conservatives in 1996 and has since become a staunch hard-right-wing Conservative who puts party politics (political ethos) above all else. And although she went to Oxford University, and graduated with a degree in philosophy, politics and economics, her understanding of economics in the real world is blinkered by her obsession in hard-line Conservative (Victorian values) political ethos.
While on the other hand, Rishi Sunak (Britain’s first Hindu Prime Minister) also got a degree at Oxford University in philosophy, politics and economics, graduating with a 1st in his university degree; he has a far greater grip on understanding economics, and unlike Liz Truss, does not put party politics first.Thank you, Arthur thank you. Britain's constitutional check and balance works perfectly well.
An interesting development, regarding the hoo-ha of the SVB Bank in the USA: I don’t know if many Americans knew that there was a small branch of the SVB bank in England – but the rescue plan the UK Government took was radically different to the USA approach; although the outcome is essential the same e.g. the saver’s money is now secure but investors and shareholder are left high and dry.
The UK approach was for the UK Government to encourage any British Bank to buy the British Branch of the SVB bank; and the HSBC (one of the big four banks in the UK) offered to buy the assets of the SVB (Savings), securing the security of the savings for those customers of the bank, for a grand sum of just £1 ($1.22) – So the British HSBC bank got a bargain.
HSBC buys failed US bank SVB's UK arm for £1 https://youtu.be/RBkkTe_H2q4The SVP bank issue is a good tangent for this thread. My first reaction to hearing that it happened, and that the FDIC had jumped in to guarantee approx. half-a-trillion dollars of 'business losses,' weren't positive.
I have the luxury (once again) of not knowing a lot about the specifics of the financial mechanisms involved, or their part in the web of the entire financial system. However, I do have an understanding of the free-market mechanisms that are also tied up in that entirety—the nation's economic viability.
I'm not asking Google or the Duck about those details either, so my leanings aren't hidden.
From news blurbs, I have heard soundbite 'defenses' of the government's actions, primarily that it won't involve any taxpayer money, and almost equally important to the public: that the bankers and investment folks were going to pay—they weren't getting a dime of 'bailout'. This was not a corporate bailout.
It's a big 'if', but, if that is true, I might need to reconsider some of those first reactions. However, after hearing from the economic 'experts' (many very well credentialed), from both sides, this isn't an issue a few hours on Google will help me understand—again, beyond the layman's basic I think I do get.
To make matters a little more uncertain, I stumbled across a clip of a Pres. G.W. Bush relating to his decisions in the 2008 crisis. The tail-end of the quote was that he had to abandon free-market principles to save the free-market.
I'm skeptical about the claim that there will be no tax money involved. I also think the free-market implications are going to have a very bad ripple effect.
When the "experts" can validate those claims the free-market implications can be challenged, but if taxpayer money is involved it's a lot bigger deal than just saving these depositors' monies.
GAYep my understanding, with respect to the SVP banks on both sides of the pond, is the same as yours; namely, as you said:-
“… primarily that it won't involve any taxpayer money (in the UK or USA), and almost equally important to the public: that the bankers and investment folks were going to pay—they weren't getting a dime of 'bailout'. This was not a corporate bailout (same in UK as USA)."
The ripple effect (fallout) of the SVB bank collapse, which rocked the banking sector in the USA, has had little impact on this side of the pond; and that seems primarily because following the financial crisis in 2008; when the UK Conservative Government came to power in 2010 they heavily Regulated the British banks in such a way to prevent a similar crisis happening again – And that Regulation seems to have made the British Banks resilient this time round.
What I find fascinating in this situation is that in the USA, although it’s not costing the taxpayer any money, the USA Federal Government seems to have taken responsibility of SVP bank in America e.g. with holdings of SVP Bank now managed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Whereas, in the UK the UK Government just sold the UK Branch of the SVP Bank to the British HSBC Bank (lock, stock and barrel) for just £1 ($1.22); so literally the HSBC bank is laughing all the way to the bank e.g. a great asset to add to their portfolio.
So ironically, it seems the UK Government has acted more ‘free market’ than the USA Government in this instance e.g. selling the assets of the British branch of the SVB bank to a private bank, while in the USA the Government is still managing the SVB bank?A government setting an arbitrary price for the sale of a private entity (even if it's just the skeleton) doesn't sound very 'free-marketish' to me.
If the primary cause of SVP's 'failure' was the loss of customer confidence due to asset devaluations — not the total loss of asset value — it is easier to understand Britain's HSBC move.
I think the FDIC's take-over effort is just a bridge operation. How they handle the details will show their direction. If SVB's insolvency was due to market value fluctuations—not crashes, and investment mismanagement, then it may be possible that taxpayer money won't be needed for this fix.
However, it sends the message that risk management isn't really important because the government will cover them.
GAThe UK government didn’t set an arbitrary price, the Government invited UK private banks to bid for the SVB bank.
There were several bids, including bids from the Bank of London, SoftBank, OakNorth Bank and a bid from ADQ (a United Arab Emirates State backed Bank in Abu Dhabi, Middle East).
But, for whatever reason, the UK Government and the Bank of England accepted the HSBC bid for £1 ($1.22); quite possibly because HSBC is the biggest bank in Europe.
And it’s a bargain price because the UK branch of the SVB bank has loans of around £5.5 billion and deposits of around £6.7 billion. SVB lacked liquidity and depositor confidence - HSBC has both of those in spades, so consider the assets the UK SVB has, just spending $1.22 to gain assets worth $billions is a good and profitable investment for HSBC.
It’s not the first time that businesses in trouble have been bought and sold in the UK for just $1.22.
Other UK firms bought for just £1 ($1.22) in the past include:-
• DIY chain store ‘Homebase’ in 2018, it was bought by an Australian Company two years earlier for £340 million, but they had a misguided perception of the UK market, and racked up debts of £1 billion in two years. Under new management, Homebase returned to profit in 2020 and now has an annual profit of over £3 million.
• BHS (British Home Stores) was sold for £1 in 2015; bought by an asset stripping company.
• City Link (a parcel delivery company) was sold for £1 in 2013 after it went into administration (bankrupt). The new company who bought it for £1 invested £40 million into City Link, but the business collapsed again, a year later, going bankrupt for a 2nd time.
• Reader’s Digest UK (UK arm of Reader’s Digest USA) was sold for £1 in 2014 by its biggest shareholder, WPP PLC (a British multinational company).
• Swansea City football club sold for £1 in 2001; in 2002 it was subsequently sold to nurses for £1. From 200 the football club has gone from strength to strength, making £14.2 million profit in 2012.
• Chelsea football club was sold for £1 in 1982, but with debts of £1.5 million. In 2002 the club sold for £140 million.
So I take it from your comment that failed companies, and companies in financial trouble, are not sold for just $1 in the USA. To me as a Brit, it’s not uncommon, and as a Brit, I see it as just part of the ‘Free Market’ in the UK?If the govt. puts a private business up for auction, receives at least 5 bids and then lets it go for one pound, it doesn't sound like "free market" to me. Unless the other bids were for a few pence?
Yep, you might be right: I don’t know what the other bids were; that’s privy between the Government and the other bidders – but I suspect HSBC’s offer was accepted primarily because HSBC is the biggest (most secure) bank in Europe; whereas the other banks are small fry in comparison.
But the one concept where we probably differ in view, because of our differing social cultural attitudes between the USA & UK, is that in the UK market economy ‘money’ isn’t always the primary factor upon which decisions are made e.g. when offering franchises, the Government doesn’t always accept the highest bidder, it’s also looking for a set of criteria that it expects the bidding companies to meet, which would include things like quality of customer service and financial competence and security etc.
A good example was back in 1991 when the ITV (Independent TV) franchises came-up for renewal. At that time there were 16 regional ITV channels; and to compete with the BBC (a nationwide broadcaster) the different ITV channels would share resources e.g. share and broadcast each other’s programmes across the whole country, acting just as if it was one national broadcaster.
After 1991, the 16 separate regional ITV companies amalgamated to create one national company; but prior to that, in the bid for franchises in 1991, there were some winners and some loser; and it wasn’t just to do with the Government accepting the highest bid, because it didn’t, ‘quality of service’ was as equally important to the Government as the money.
For example, in 1991, some of the interesting bids for TV franchises from the UK Government included:-
• Carlton Central, in incumbent TV broadcaster for the Midlands (middle England), didn’t feel they had a chance of winning against the big guys in the industry; so they put in just a nominal bid of just £2,000 for a service worth $millions – and not expecting to win (a defeatist attitude). None of the other companies made a bid for the Midland TV area (considered a lucrative service) because they assumed Carlton would put in a BIG bid to try to retain their franchise, and would out bid them. Therefore, Carlton retained the Midland, unopposed, for a nominal fee of just £2,000. Carlton winning the bid for a service worth £millions, on such a low bid was big news in the UK News Media at the time.
• In contrast, Yorkshire TV, the incumbent TV Company in Yorkshire, put in a bid for their franchise, against stiff competition, of £37.7 million – and won, by being the biggest bidder; the other two bids were £30.1 million and £17.4 million.
• However, Thames TV (covering ITV for London) won the bid, even though they put in the lowest bid. Thames TV won the franchise with a bid of just £32.7 million, because the other two bidders of £45.3 million and £43.2 million failed on quality grounds.
So in the UK, it’s not always to do with the money; it’s not always a money first philosophy in the UK.Yep, you might be right: I don’t know what the other bids were; that’s privy between the Government and the other bidders – but I suspect HSBC’s offer was accepted primarily because HSBC is the biggest (most secure) bank in Europe; whereas the other banks are small fry in comparison.
But the one concept where we probably differ in view, because of our differing social cultural attitudes between the USA & UK, is that in the UK market economy ‘money’ isn’t always the primary factor upon which decisions are made e.g. when offering franchises, the Government doesn’t always accept the highest bidder, it’s also looking for a set of criteria that it expects the bidding companies to meet, which would include things like quality of customer service and financial competence and security etc.
A good example was back in 1991 when the ITV (Independent TV) franchises came-up for renewal. At that time there were 16 regional ITV channels; and to compete with the BBC (a nationwide broadcaster) the different ITV channels would share resources e.g. share and broadcast each other’s programmes across the whole country, acting just as if it was one national broadcaster.
After 1991, the 16 separate regional ITV companies amalgamated to create one national company; but prior to that, in the bid for franchises in 1991, there were some winners and some loser; and it wasn’t just to do with the Government accepting the highest bid, because it didn’t, ‘quality of service’ was as equally important to the Government as the money.
For example, in 1991, some of the interesting bids for TV franchises from the UK Government included:-
• Central TV, incumbent TV broadcaster for the Midlands (middle England), didn’t feel they had a chance of winning against the big guys in the industry; so they put in just a nominal bid of just £2,000 for a service worth $millions – and not expecting to win (a defeatist attitude). None of the other companies made a bid for the Midland TV area (considered a lucrative service) because they assumed Central TV would put in a BIG bid to try to retain their franchise, and would out bid them. Therefore, Central TV retained the Midland TV franchise, unopposed, for a nominal fee of just £2,000.
• In contrast, Yorkshire TV, the incumbent TV Company in Yorkshire, put in a bid for their franchise, against stiff competition, of £37.7 million – and won, by being the biggest bidder; the other two bids were £30.1 million and £17.4 million.
• However, Thames TV (covering ITV for London) who put in a bid for £32.7 million lost the bid to Carlton TV who bid £43.2 million, even though Carlton TV wasn’t the biggest bidder. CPT-TV put in the biggest bid of £45.3 million, but failed to win on ‘quality grounds.
• The highest bidder in the South East of England was TVS (incumbent TV Company), they put in a bid of £59.8 million; but their bid failed on ‘quality grounds’, and instead, the franchise was awarded to next highest bidder, Meridian TV, who put in a bid of £36.5 million.
TV Franchise Awards 1991: https://youtu.be/Ti5Y2rPBHzo
So in the UK, it’s not always to do with the money; it’s not always a money first philosophy in the UK.
I don't recall instances, of the type we are discussing, being sold for a token $1 price.
Just for kicks, what if the public and financial benefit of HSBC's purchase were achieved by an almost equally 'token' amount of $100 million (wouldn't any company spend a million to make an instant billion?), and that money could be directed to depositors that were harmed?
Couldn't you also see great public benefits from that? Were none of the other bidders financially stable enough to earn the government's confidence in a deal with them? What if one of them were qualified to take on the strain and were offering a token of $1 million, wouldn't you see accepting the $1 deal a little less benevolently?
Our concept is that if a business fails its remaining assets are bought, either for salvage value, 'stripping' value, or as a lifeline sale (in the nature of the HSBC deal but more realistic, as in Fiat's purchase of Chrysler in the 2008 crisis.
GAReference your “Just for kicks….'token' amount of $100 million….that money could be directed to depositors that were harmed”
For clarity, neither in the USA nor UK have the ‘depositors’ been harmed; their savings are secure. Who have lost out are the ‘investors’ e.g. shareholders; but doesn’t that happen anyway when a Company goes bankrupt e.g. the shareholders are left with shares that are worthless – that’s the risk you take when you buy stocks and shares, rather than just depositing your money in a bank?
As I said to wilderness, the HSBC is the biggest and most secure bank in Europe; the other banks making a bid were just small fry in comparison. So I guess the UK Government’s decision was based on ‘security’ rather than ’money’. Remember that in the UK it’s not just all about ‘money’ – in the UK it’s not all about ‘money first’; in the UK other ‘values’ can take precedence over ‘money value’.
Yep, your concept in the USA “that if a business fails its remaining assets are bought, either for salvage value, 'stripping' value, or as a lifeline sale”, is the same concept in the UK. If a Company in the UK goes into liquidation, in the first instance there may well be an attempt of a rescue plan e.g. a takeover by another private business (lock stock and barrel, including the debts) who think they can turn the Company around and make it profitable again; often involving restructuring of the insolvent Company. And in worst case scenario the insolvent Company is bought out by an ‘asset stripping company’.
The ‘Full’ UK Government Regulations for dealing with ‘liquidation and insolvency’ is spelt out in this UK Government Document: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati … insolvency
Bonuses of up to £20 million have been awarded to existing staff and management of the UK branch of SVB. The bonuses were approved by SVB’s new owner, the UK HSBC bank (the largest bank in Europe).
https://news.sky.com/story/silicon-vall … e-12836853My first thoughts went to our 2008 investment houses crash. Federal bailout money was used for executive bonuses while investors lost all value.
Your link presents a different situation. The headlines scream criticism but the details seem like reasonable post-deal decisions. First, no tax money was involved(?) (unlike the US situation), and secondly, it appears it might be safe to say the UK branch was doing okay and only failed because the parent failed. If so, it makes sense to keep as much of the key team as possible. HSBC probably decided they didn't need to start from scratch.
GAYep, spot on; as you said, “the UK branch was doing okay and only failed because the parent (in the USA) failed”. So yes, as you say, the HSBC have decided it would be prudent to keep the existing UK SVB staff and management on, rather than start from scratch – seems to make good business sense.
Sharlee: I think we both chased a rabbit on this discussion. But, boy, the gents sure have a lot to say on this subject.
Certainly. Oddly, at critical point in the family, I stay behind from work to look after baby and mom, the last time my wife put to bed. I mean I took 6 weeks leave from work and stay home because the other children are off to school.
My husband and sons would do that too. Sorry that you had to and hope your wife and child are well now.
Yes. And nothing to sorry for. Its life that mattered. Glad that your man and boys have such a mindset. Thanks.
Related Discussions
- 54
I had a much different title - About the genius Paul Krugman
by uncorrectedvision 13 years ago
What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the products of Summer's Eve. Krugman is a partisan, a warrior for one side and no...
- 57
The Folly of Trickle-Down Economics
by Arthur Russ 2 years ago
Trickle-Down Economics is an economic theory whereby if the Government gives the wealthy a cash injection that they will invest that money in the economy which in turn will stimulate economic growth.However, in practice, rather than investing the extra money in the economy there is a great tendency...
- 203
Trickle Down Economics doesn't work
by Moderndayslave 13 years ago
With the income gap between the wealthiest American's and the soon to be decimated middle or working class ever increasing. How much more proof do you need that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't creating jobs or supplying wages that are holding their own against inflation....
- 10
Justice Scalia And Constitutional Fundementals
by ga anderson 2 years ago
Fundamentals - the foundation of every argument. This one is about the dangers of centralized government.GA
- 22
Should there be more cuts to budget in the short term, even with the threat of a
by Steven Dison 12 years ago
Should there be more cuts to budget in the short term, even with the threat of austerity looming?
- 243
What should be done about the economic crisis in Europe and the U.S.?
by Ralph Deeds 12 years ago
Economists Agree: Solutions Are ElusiveBy EDUARDO PORTERPublished: April 23, 2013 "Last week the International Monetary Fund hosted a conference of some of the world’s top macroeconomists to assess how the most intense crisis to have shaken the industrialized economies since the...