"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
I have never cited the UK as a model to aspire to. I have said before that we have the worst of all worlds - textbook laissez faire in the sale of national assets, but a serious regulatory and tax burden that makes our own businesses slower to grow.
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
"Why does the UK believe that “from the river to the sea” is hateful? Because @SuellaBraverman has a Jewish husband, er, a Zionist husband… Honestly this wouldn’t have been out of place in Germany in a certain period"
Why do people think there’s anything sinister about chanting “Jihad, Jihad”, when the police assure us it’s a purely peaceful expression?
Aiui there are a number of peaceful meanings of jihad within Islam, probably none of which apply in this case, such as the daily struggle to lead a good life, stay on the straight and narrow and that sort of thing but IANAE.
Of course, we already faced this choice — and made it — in 2020. Why insist on a do-over? Because a country approaching its 250th birthday does not have the luxury of calling itself an experiment forever; this is the moment to assess the results of that experiment. Because Jan. 6 was not the final offensive by those who would overrun the will of voters. Because a lone Trump victory in 2016 could conceivably be remembered as an aberration if it were followed by two consecutive defeats, but a Trump restoration in 2024 would confirm America’s slide toward authoritarian rule and would render Biden’s lone term an interregnum, a blip in history’s turn. And we must choose again because the fever did not break; instead, it threatens to break us.
Here is a video of today's Cenotaph ceremony at the point the former Prime Ministers go inside. Does anyone else think Gordon Brown is walking stiffly? (tbh it does not look quite as bad now as it did live.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v6JQ392mNA&t=2383s
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
"Why does the UK believe that “from the river to the sea” is hateful? Because @SuellaBraverman has a Jewish husband, er, a Zionist husband… Honestly this wouldn’t have been out of place in Germany in a certain period"
Why do people think there’s anything sinister about chanting “Jihad, Jihad”, when the police assure us it’s a purely peaceful expression?
Aiui there are a number of peaceful meanings of jihad within Islam, probably none of which apply in this case, such as the daily struggle to lead a good life, stay on the straight and narrow and that sort of thing but IANAE.
Some of this kind of debate about religious meanings and expressions and tiny differences would not be out of place in 1640s England.
Not all taxes are alike, and of course not all countries are alike in their relative need for infrastructure spending or their dependency ratios (though the dependency ratio in all developed countries, and therefore the equilibrium level of tax and spending for a given quality of public archives, is rising inexorably as we all age).
Britain’s levels of business taxation are now comparable with most of the rest of Europe, and in some cases higher than in Scandinavia. Our indirect taxes are also in line with European norms. But our personal tax, particularly payroll tax and NIC, are significantly lower. That’s where the gap is. But people vote, corporations don’t.
Megan McArdle draws our attention to a study on homelessness. ". . . higher minimum wages may be contributing to homelessness, a problem that is, of course, particularly bad in California.
For those interested in diplomatic affairs President Sisi of Egypt and President Raisi of Iran have held their first ever meeting. Talk of establishing full diplomatic relations. Hmmm
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
I have never cited the UK as a model to aspire to. I have said before that we have the worst of all worlds - textbook laissez faire in the sale of national assets, but a serious regulatory and tax burden that makes our own businesses slower to grow.
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
Denmark has had higher tax rates and better GPD per capita growth* than the UK throughout. (*This no doubt helped by the vastly better infrastucture spending.)
So please explain to me once again your evidence that "'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent."
And any of those on PB who regularly spout that we have unsustainably high levels of taxation should take a long hard look at Denmark and other similar countries.
We should raise taxes, cut the deficit, reduce debt, invest more in infrastructure. Oh, and cut spending by canning the triple lock.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The government spends at 45% of GDP, and taxes at 37% of GDP. That ought to be more than adequate to run efficient public services.
The Scandinavian countries tax and spend more than us, and achieve better outcomes. The Club Med and Belgium tax and spend more than us and achieve worse outcomes.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
Megan McArdle draws our attention to a study on homelessness. ". . . higher minimum wages may be contributing to homelessness, a problem that is, of course, particularly bad in California.
This was always a theoretical objection to the minimum wage: that it raised entry-level pay higher than many workers' marginal utility, leaving them destitute. Another theoretical objection was that it effectively became a target to which higher wages trended (downwards). More research is needed, but the implication is that the effect is divisive: some gain, others lose.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
Why would raising taxes to Scandinavian levels stifle the economy?
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
Topsy turvy world, the PB reactionaries usually try to minimise the numbers for whichever protest march is currently boiling their wee, now they want to maximise them so they can get exercised over 300 000 antisemites and Hamas supporters. Funny how far right thugs (which pretty much described every **** who turned up at the Cenotaph yesterday) are nothing to do with them while every lefty, wokeista and progressive is now complicit with the small number of identifiably antisemitc marchers.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
France has had worse weather than us in the last couple of years, with large parts of the country above 40 degrees C for weeks at a time.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
Yet Denmark seems remarkably happy. Sweden and Norway too from my last brief visit. And that despite the shite weather and dark winters.
@MrKieranBradley NEW: PM @RishiSunak has ordered a major tightening up of protest laws, after a day of violence in central London on Saturday. Reports @TheSun
Sunak has drawn up five areas where legal loopholes need to be closed on policing.
The clampdown would see:
-New laws drawn up to stop protesters climbing on statues, scaffolding and bus stops during protests.
-The law around fireworks, smoke bombs and flares tightened up.
-The threshold at which cops can ban marches and protests due to safety concerns lowered.
-The law on glorifying terrorists like Hamas is also to be tightened as cops say it is too vague to enforce currently.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
Yet Denmark seems remarkably happy. Sweden and Norway too from my last brief visit. And that despite the shite weather and dark winters.
I would absolutely not describe Sweden as "remarkably happy" and their politics bears this out
Topsy turvy world, the PB reactionaries usually try to minimise the numbers for whichever protest march is currently boiling their wee, now they want to maximise them so they can get exercised over 300 000 antisemites and Hamas supporters. Funny how far right thugs (which pretty much described every **** who turned up at the Cenotaph yesterday) are nothing to do with them while every lefty, wokeista and progressive is now complicit with the small number of identifiably antisemitc marchers.
Why not break the habit of a lifetime, and make an argument of your own? All we get from you are endless sour remarks about other peoples’ arguments.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
Topsy turvy world, the PB reactionaries usually try to minimise the numbers for whichever protest march is currently boiling their wee, now they want to maximise them so they can get exercised over 300 000 antisemites and Hamas supporters. Funny how far right thugs (which pretty much described every **** who turned up at the Cenotaph yesterday) are nothing to do with them while every lefty, wokeista and progressive is now complicit with the small number of identifiably antisemitc marchers.
Why not break the habit of a lifetime, and make an argument of your own? All we get from you are endless sour remarks about other peoples’ arguments.
He is a Scot Nat. The political dream of a lifetime is dead, for another lifetime (or forever)
Pressure grows on Rishi Sunak to sack Suella Braverman over Armistice Day violence via @FT
“She has to go. Irrespective of whether she stirred up the violence, she will be held responsible. She’s the home secretary FFS. She should know better.”
There's a small story that helps explain why the Democratic Party is doing so poorly in rural areas. "Grizzly bears could get another chance at returning to Washington’s North Cascades, under a framework two federal agencies unveiled on Thursday.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Park Service released a set of options to bring the hulking animals back into the area — a wild expanse of glaciated peaks, dense forests, and rushing streams and rivers."
There are, broadly, three types of bears in North America, black bears, grizzly bears (which are mostly brown), and polar bears. Wildlife experts advise that, If attacked by a bear, fight back if it's black, lay down if it's brown (play dead), say good night if it's white. (I've encountered black bears while camping; they stole food from other campers but didn't injure anyone. They sometimes are found in this suburban area, but have not proved to be especially dangerous to people here.)
"Why does the UK believe that “from the river to the sea” is hateful? Because @SuellaBraverman has a Jewish husband, er, a Zionist husband… Honestly this wouldn’t have been out of place in Germany in a certain period"
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
I have never cited the UK as a model to aspire to. I have said before that we have the worst of all worlds - textbook laissez faire in the sale of national assets, but a serious regulatory and tax burden that makes our own businesses slower to grow.
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
Denmark has had higher tax rates and better GPD per capita growth* than the UK throughout. (*This no doubt helped by the vastly better infrastucture spending.)
So please explain to me once again your evidence that "'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent."
And any of those on PB who regularly spout that we have unsustainably high levels of taxation should take a long hard look at Denmark and other similar countries.
We should raise taxes, cut the deficit, reduce debt, invest more in infrastructure. Oh, and cut spending by canning the triple lock.
Perhaps you should do some actual research on the economic history of Denmark before 1973 - it appears to be fascinating.
Ownership of farms: ... two-thirds of all Danish farmers became owner-occupiers compared to only ten percent in the mid-eighteenth century. This development was halted during the next two and a half decades but resumed as the business cycle picked up during the 1840s and 1850s. It was to become of vital importance to the modernization of Danish agriculture towards the end of the nineteenth century that 75 percent of all agricultural land was farmed by owners of middle-sized farms of about 50 acres.
Responding flexibly to global opportunities: Following the loss of the secured Norwegian market for grain in 1814, Danish exports began to target the British market. The great rush forward came as the British Corn Law was repealed in 1846. The export share of the production value in agriculture rose from roughly 10 to around 30 percent between 1800 and 1870.
Danish Farmers move dynamically away from grain exports and into bacon and butter: The driving force of growth was that of a small open economy, which responded effectively to a change in international product prices, in this instance caused by the invasion of cheap grain to Western Europe from North America and Eastern Europe. Like Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium, Denmark did not impose a tariff on grain, in spite of the strong agrarian dominance in society and politics.
Proposals to impose tariffs on grain, and later on cattle and butter, were turned down by Danish farmers. The majority seems to have realized the advantages accruing from the free imports of cheap animal feed during the ongoing process of transition from vegetable to animal production, at a time when the prices of animal products did not decline as much as grain prices.
As a small aside - peace: Denmark, as a neutral nation, escaped the devastating effects of World War I and was even allowed to carry on exports to both sides in the conflict.
No nationalisation post-WW2: The Danish policy differed from that of some other parts of Europe in that the remains of the planned economy from the war and reconstruction period in the form of rationing and price control were dismantled around 1950 and that no nationalizations took place.
Those are some highlights of a country becoming rich - with the North Sea Oil coming on stream in the 1970's (when your growth chart begins) helping a lot too.
A big state, like a big house and a big car, isn't how you become rich, it's a thing you spend money on when you are rich.
"If this be proved, I never writ, nor any man ever loved."
And yet some doubt he is the paragon of all time.
Olivier does it so well. With such quite panache, and shy yet absolute confidence. Genius
Yes, the confidence is quite something. It is like he knows he was born to deliver these lines.
It makes me sad, to be honest
I know that all ageing men shake their fists at clouds, and I am that, and yet it is impossible not to feel that we have lost something important, these last two decades. We have willingly detached ourselves from a great and revered culture, the greatest civilisation of all: European art and architecture, the glory of the Enlightenment, Shakespeare and Dante and Manet and Mozart, we have torn it all down, we have thrown down the statues and replaced them with... what? Tawdry nonsense from inferior cultures, or - worse - nothing at all
Topsy turvy world, the PB reactionaries usually try to minimise the numbers for whichever protest march is currently boiling their wee, now they want to maximise them so they can get exercised over 300 000 antisemites and Hamas supporters. Funny how far right thugs (which pretty much described every **** who turned up at the Cenotaph yesterday) are nothing to do with them while every lefty, wokeista and progressive is now complicit with the small number of identifiably antisemitc marchers.
Why not break the habit of a lifetime, and make an argument of your own? All we get from you are endless sour remarks about other peoples’ arguments.
All 'we' eh? I'm not part of your 'we' and never will be.
I'm not sure someone whose mo is sour whining about pols in countries in which you don't live and an unhealthy obsession with Nazi sadists is in a strong position to criticise.
The apology is laughable. And that's the second high ranking official at the FA who has put out anti-Semitic stuff. No wonder they made all sorts of excuses why they couldn't light up Wembley Arch.
"If this be proved, I never writ, nor any man ever loved."
And yet some doubt he is the paragon of all time.
Olivier does it so well. With such quite panache, and shy yet absolute confidence. Genius
Yes, the confidence is quite something. It is like he knows he was born to deliver these lines.
It makes me sad, to be honest
I know that all ageing men shake their fists at clouds, and I am that, and yet it is impossible not to feel that we have lost something important, these last two decades. We have willingly detached ourselves from a great and revered culture, the greatest civilisation of all: European art and architecture, the glory of the Enlightenment, Shakespeare and Dante and Manet and Mozart, we have torn it all down, we have thrown down the statues and replaced them with... what? Tawdry nonsense from inferior cultures, or - worse - nothing at all
Oh dear, oh dear, how depressing you are.
I guess you genuinely believe that bullshit but none of the Enlightenment, Shakespeare, Dante, Manet or Mozart have been 'torn down'.
Shakespeare in particular has never been more widely performed. Get a grip!
Topsy turvy world, the PB reactionaries usually try to minimise the numbers for whichever protest march is currently boiling their wee, now they want to maximise them so they can get exercised over 300 000 antisemites and Hamas supporters. Funny how far right thugs (which pretty much described every **** who turned up at the Cenotaph yesterday) are nothing to do with them while every lefty, wokeista and progressive is now complicit with the small number of identifiably antisemitc marchers.
Why not break the habit of a lifetime, and make an argument of your own? All we get from you are endless sour remarks about other peoples’ arguments.
All 'we' eh? I'm not part of your 'we' and never will be.
I'm not sure someone whose mo is sour whining about pols in countries in which you don't live and an unhealthy obsession with Nazi sadists is in a strong position to criticise.
Benpointer - I tried to give you a partial answer to your question on US welfare programs; could you do the same for mine? How does the per capita spending compare between the US Medicaid programs, and the UK's NHS?
It's about 7K for the first, but I don't know enough about your budgets to guess what the second would be.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
I have never cited the UK as a model to aspire to. I have said before that we have the worst of all worlds - textbook laissez faire in the sale of national assets, but a serious regulatory and tax burden that makes our own businesses slower to grow.
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
Denmark has had higher tax rates and better GPD per capita growth* than the UK throughout. (*This no doubt helped by the vastly better infrastucture spending.)
So please explain to me once again your evidence that "'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent."
And any of those on PB who regularly spout that we have unsustainably high levels of taxation should take a long hard look at Denmark and other similar countries.
We should raise taxes, cut the deficit, reduce debt, invest more in infrastructure. Oh, and cut spending by canning the triple lock.
Perhaps you should do some actual research on the economic history of Denmark before 1973 - it appears to be fascinating.
Ownership of farms: ... two-thirds of all Danish farmers became owner-occupiers compared to only ten percent in the mid-eighteenth century. This development was halted during the next two and a half decades but resumed as the business cycle picked up during the 1840s and 1850s. It was to become of vital importance to the modernization of Danish agriculture towards the end of the nineteenth century that 75 percent of all agricultural land was farmed by owners of middle-sized farms of about 50 acres.
Responding flexibly to global opportunities: Following the loss of the secured Norwegian market for grain in 1814, Danish exports began to target the British market. The great rush forward came as the British Corn Law was repealed in 1846. The export share of the production value in agriculture rose from roughly 10 to around 30 percent between 1800 and 1870.
Danish Farmers move dynamically away from grain exports and into bacon and butter: The driving force of growth was that of a small open economy, which responded effectively to a change in international product prices, in this instance caused by the invasion of cheap grain to Western Europe from North America and Eastern Europe. Like Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium, Denmark did not impose a tariff on grain, in spite of the strong agrarian dominance in society and politics.
Proposals to impose tariffs on grain, and later on cattle and butter, were turned down by Danish farmers. The majority seems to have realized the advantages accruing from the free imports of cheap animal feed during the ongoing process of transition from vegetable to animal production, at a time when the prices of animal products did not decline as much as grain prices.
As a small aside - peace: Denmark, as a neutral nation, escaped the devastating effects of World War I and was even allowed to carry on exports to both sides in the conflict.
No nationalisation post-WW2: The Danish policy differed from that of some other parts of Europe in that the remains of the planned economy from the war and reconstruction period in the form of rationing and price control were dismantled around 1950 and that no nationalizations took place.
Those are some highlights of a country becoming rich - with the North Sea Oil coming on stream in the 1970's (when your growth chart begins) helping a lot too.
A big state, like a big house and a big car, isn't how you become rich, it's a thing you spend money on when you are rich.
Sigh, you are predictably moving the goalposts.
Neither of us will convince the other. Fortunatley, I am confident the pendulum is moving my way.
It will be Biden vs Trump and it will be democracy vs fascism.
This is the election of our lifetimes folks.
Belt up.
He's got about this much left <----> until comparisons with Hitler are entirely apt.
Hitler of course did spend time in jail before becoming Chancellor.
One of the things that really struck me from reading Richard Overy's book The Third Reich is the way EVERYONE could see the trouble coming, and essentially NOBODY did anything to act. They all thought that some other group or person would thwart Hitler. The police will stop him. The courts will stop him. Parliament will stop him. The army will stop him. Big business will stop him. Trade unions will stop him. The churches will stop him. The President will stop him. The people will stop him.
There's probably a lesson in there somewhere, but I think that pondering it in public is unwise.
@MrKieranBradley NEW: PM @RishiSunak has ordered a major tightening up of protest laws, after a day of violence in central London on Saturday. Reports @TheSun
Sunak has drawn up five areas where legal loopholes need to be closed on policing.
The clampdown would see:
-New laws drawn up to stop protesters climbing on statues, scaffolding and bus stops during protests.
-The law around fireworks, smoke bombs and flares tightened up.
-The threshold at which cops can ban marches and protests due to safety concerns lowered.
-The law on glorifying terrorists like Hamas is also to be tightened as cops say it is too vague to enforce currently.
Why does that threshold need lowering ? (Other than providing a pretext for banning protests the government of the day doesn’t like,)
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
But they'll always have Paris.
After my exciting walk around London yesterday, I would argue that London is the notably superior city. Not as harmoniously beautiful for sure - Peris is peerless in that respect, certainly amongst great large cities - but London is way more interesting, dynamic, strange, compelling
OTOH I readily accept that France is a significantly more beautiful country, overall, than the UK: much more handsome towns and much more diverse and impressive landscapes. It is arguably the most beautiful country on earth per square mile (only Italy might match it)
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
Yet Denmark seems remarkably happy. Sweden and Norway too from my last brief visit. And that despite the shite weather and dark winters.
I would absolutely not describe Sweden as "remarkably happy" and their politics bears this out
Indeed, nowhere's perfect and every nation has its good and bad places.
Actually, can that - there are plenty of countries I would never want to live in. We are lucky to live in a developed western country, though we often forget it.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
I have never cited the UK as a model to aspire to. I have said before that we have the worst of all worlds - textbook laissez faire in the sale of national assets, but a serious regulatory and tax burden that makes our own businesses slower to grow.
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
Excruciatingly silly comment.
Ben is not suggesting that growth in tax rates leads to increased economic growth. He is suggesting that the higher level of taxation does.
The fact is that on most indicators the Danes have a stronger economy and better standard of living, all with higher tax rates. Otoh, the real divergence appears to be a result of the Great Recession - either because their response was better, or that the UK's GDP per capita was a mirage before 2008.
I personally think that high rates of unionisation across the labour market are a larger factor for their lower levels of inequality, perhaps even economic growth. But that's a bigger debate.
Topsy turvy world, the PB reactionaries usually try to minimise the numbers for whichever protest march is currently boiling their wee, now they want to maximise them so they can get exercised over 300 000 antisemites and Hamas supporters. Funny how far right thugs (which pretty much described every **** who turned up at the Cenotaph yesterday) are nothing to do with them while every lefty, wokeista and progressive is now complicit with the small number of identifiably antisemitc marchers.
Why not break the habit of a lifetime, and make an argument of your own? All we get from you are endless sour remarks about other peoples’ arguments.
All 'we' eh? I'm not part of your 'we' and never will be.
I'm not sure someone whose mo is sour whining about pols in countries in which you don't live and an unhealthy obsession with Nazi sadists is in a strong position to criticise.
Jeez. I tried to be compassionate, but this?
Perhaps you need a break from PB
What gave you the idea that anyone is in need of compassion from you of all people?
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
I have never cited the UK as a model to aspire to. I have said before that we have the worst of all worlds - textbook laissez faire in the sale of national assets, but a serious regulatory and tax burden that makes our own businesses slower to grow.
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
Denmark has had higher tax rates and better GPD per capita growth* than the UK throughout. (*This no doubt helped by the vastly better infrastucture spending.)
So please explain to me once again your evidence that "'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent."
And any of those on PB who regularly spout that we have unsustainably high levels of taxation should take a long hard look at Denmark and other similar countries.
We should raise taxes, cut the deficit, reduce debt, invest more in infrastructure. Oh, and cut spending by canning the triple lock.
Perhaps you should do some actual research on the economic history of Denmark before 1973 - it appears to be fascinating.
Ownership of farms: ... two-thirds of all Danish farmers became owner-occupiers compared to only ten percent in the mid-eighteenth century. This development was halted during the next two and a half decades but resumed as the business cycle picked up during the 1840s and 1850s. It was to become of vital importance to the modernization of Danish agriculture towards the end of the nineteenth century that 75 percent of all agricultural land was farmed by owners of middle-sized farms of about 50 acres.
Responding flexibly to global opportunities: Following the loss of the secured Norwegian market for grain in 1814, Danish exports began to target the British market. The great rush forward came as the British Corn Law was repealed in 1846. The export share of the production value in agriculture rose from roughly 10 to around 30 percent between 1800 and 1870.
Danish Farmers move dynamically away from grain exports and into bacon and butter: The driving force of growth was that of a small open economy, which responded effectively to a change in international product prices, in this instance caused by the invasion of cheap grain to Western Europe from North America and Eastern Europe. Like Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium, Denmark did not impose a tariff on grain, in spite of the strong agrarian dominance in society and politics.
Proposals to impose tariffs on grain, and later on cattle and butter, were turned down by Danish farmers. The majority seems to have realized the advantages accruing from the free imports of cheap animal feed during the ongoing process of transition from vegetable to animal production, at a time when the prices of animal products did not decline as much as grain prices.
As a small aside - peace: Denmark, as a neutral nation, escaped the devastating effects of World War I and was even allowed to carry on exports to both sides in the conflict.
No nationalisation post-WW2: The Danish policy differed from that of some other parts of Europe in that the remains of the planned economy from the war and reconstruction period in the form of rationing and price control were dismantled around 1950 and that no nationalizations took place.
Those are some highlights of a country becoming rich - with the North Sea Oil coming on stream in the 1970's (when your growth chart begins) helping a lot too.
A big state, like a big house and a big car, isn't how you become rich, it's a thing you spend money on when you are rich.
Sigh, you are predictably moving the goalposts.
Neither of us will convince the other. Fortunatley, I am confident the pendulum is moving my way.
Er, no, I demonstrated exactly the case I set out. There are all sorts of reasons for Denmark (and Sweden, and Norway's) wealth. They fall mainly into Smith's 'Peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice', and all happened long before the introduction of modern socialised state policies. I don't begrudge the Scandi countries for doing those things; I don't really care, but they do them because they're rich already, and good luck - they seem to be staying afloat with that ballast. I want the UK to do the actual things that make you rich.
"If this be proved, I never writ, nor any man ever loved."
And yet some doubt he is the paragon of all time.
Olivier does it so well. With such quite panache, and shy yet absolute confidence. Genius
Yes, the confidence is quite something. It is like he knows he was born to deliver these lines.
It makes me sad, to be honest
I know that all ageing men shake their fists at clouds, and I am that, and yet it is impossible not to feel that we have lost something important, these last two decades. We have willingly detached ourselves from a great and revered culture, the greatest civilisation of all: European art and architecture, the glory of the Enlightenment, Shakespeare and Dante and Manet and Mozart, we have torn it all down, we have thrown down the statues and replaced them with... what? Tawdry nonsense from inferior cultures, or - worse - nothing at all
It is only a couple of days since the BBC's news page included a video of David Tennant wearing a poppy and reciting Macbeth as part of Auntie's 400 years of Shakespeare celebrations. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67337127
Benpointer - I tried to give you a partial answer to your question on US welfare programs; could you do the same for mine? How does the per capita spending compare between the US Medicaid programs, and the UK's NHS?
It's about 7K for the first, but I don't know enough about your budgets to guess what the second would be.
"If this be proved, I never writ, nor any man ever loved."
And yet some doubt he is the paragon of all time.
Olivier does it so well. With such quite panache, and shy yet absolute confidence. Genius
Yes, the confidence is quite something. It is like he knows he was born to deliver these lines.
It makes me sad, to be honest
I know that all ageing men shake their fists at clouds, and I am that, and yet it is impossible not to feel that we have lost something important, these last two decades. We have willingly detached ourselves from a great and revered culture, the greatest civilisation of all: European art and architecture, the glory of the Enlightenment, Shakespeare and Dante and Manet and Mozart, we have torn it all down, we have thrown down the statues and replaced them with... what? Tawdry nonsense from inferior cultures, or - worse - nothing at all
@MrKieranBradley NEW: PM @RishiSunak has ordered a major tightening up of protest laws, after a day of violence in central London on Saturday. Reports @TheSun
Sunak has drawn up five areas where legal loopholes need to be closed on policing.
The clampdown would see:
-New laws drawn up to stop protesters climbing on statues, scaffolding and bus stops during protests.
-The law around fireworks, smoke bombs and flares tightened up.
-The threshold at which cops can ban marches and protests due to safety concerns lowered.
-The law on glorifying terrorists like Hamas is also to be tightened as cops say it is too vague to enforce currently.
Why does that threshold need lowering ? (Other than providing a pretext for banning protests the government of the day doesn’t like,)
It probably doesn’t, but the point is not actually to change the law for any practical reason. It’s to have something to talk about to make the Tories look tough.
Sample: "What I saw [20 years ago as an undergraduate] was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Colorblindness with race-obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob."
Judging people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.
What did he say? The tweet doesn't have any quote from him? (That I can see - as a non-twitter/x premium-double-plus-good subscriber anyway).
Donald Trump said (or wrote):-
"In honor of our great veterans on Veteran's Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within. Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
(Retyped by me so E&OE.)
Jeeeeez :-/. I apologise for even making you type that out :-/
There's a small story that helps explain why the Democratic Party is doing so poorly in rural areas. "Grizzly bears could get another chance at returning to Washington’s North Cascades, under a framework two federal agencies unveiled on Thursday.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Park Service released a set of options to bring the hulking animals back into the area — a wild expanse of glaciated peaks, dense forests, and rushing streams and rivers."
There are, broadly, three types of bears in North America, black bears, grizzly bears (which are mostly brown), and polar bears. Wildlife experts advise that, If attacked by a bear, fight back if it's black, lay down if it's brown (play dead), say good night if it's white. (I've encountered black bears while camping; they stole food from other campers but didn't injure anyone. They sometimes are found in this suburban area, but have not proved to be especially dangerous to people here.)
I cannot for the life of me understand people who want to reintroduce dangerous animals. They're dangerous. The clue's in the name. Bears are land sharks with better PR that can inflict horrific wounds. Whichever madman is doing this, find them and fire them.
@MrKieranBradley NEW: PM @RishiSunak has ordered a major tightening up of protest laws, after a day of violence in central London on Saturday. Reports @TheSun
Sunak has drawn up five areas where legal loopholes need to be closed on policing.
The clampdown would see:
-New laws drawn up to stop protesters climbing on statues, scaffolding and bus stops during protests.
-The law around fireworks, smoke bombs and flares tightened up.
-The threshold at which cops can ban marches and protests due to safety concerns lowered.
-The law on glorifying terrorists like Hamas is also to be tightened as cops say it is too vague to enforce currently.
Why does that threshold need lowering ? (Other than providing a pretext for banning protests the government of the day doesn’t like,)
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
I have never cited the UK as a model to aspire to. I have said before that we have the worst of all worlds - textbook laissez faire in the sale of national assets, but a serious regulatory and tax burden that makes our own businesses slower to grow.
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
Excruciatingly silly comment.
Ben is not suggesting that growth in tax rates leads to increased economic growth. He is suggesting that the higher level of taxation does.
The fact is that on most indicators the Danes have a stronger economy and better standard of living, all with higher tax rates. Otoh, the real divergence appears to be a result of the Great Recession - either because their response was better, or that the UK's GDP per capita was a mirage before 2008.
I personally think that high rates of unionisation across the labour market are a larger factor for their lower levels of inequality, perhaps even economic growth. But that's a bigger debate.
That's what I challenged him to show, so if he didn't, how was it silly to say as much? I also don't view economic history as starting in 1973 - the UK made its money (not much left now) in the 19th century, and my comments on Denmark's former dynamism were based on that length of timeline.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
I have never cited the UK as a model to aspire to. I have said before that we have the worst of all worlds - textbook laissez faire in the sale of national assets, but a serious regulatory and tax burden that makes our own businesses slower to grow.
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
Excruciatingly silly comment.
Ben is not suggesting that growth in tax rates leads to increased economic growth. He is suggesting that the higher level of taxation does.
The fact is that on most indicators the Danes have a stronger economy and better standard of living, all with higher tax rates. Otoh, the real divergence appears to be a result of the Great Recession - either because their response was better, or that the UK's GDP per capita was a mirage before 2008.
I personally think that high rates of unionisation across the labour market are a larger factor for their lower levels of inequality, perhaps even economic growth. But that's a bigger debate.
That's what I challenged him to show, so if he didn't, how was it silly to say as much? I also don't view economic history as starting in 1973 - the UK made its money (not much left now) in the 19th century, and my comments on Denmark's former dynamism were based on that length of timeline.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
But they'll always have Paris.
After my exciting walk around London yesterday, I would argue that London is the notably superior city. Not as harmoniously beautiful for sure - Peris is peerless in that respect, certainly amongst great large cities - but London is way more interesting, dynamic, strange, compelling
OTOH I readily accept that France is a significantly more beautiful country, overall, than the UK: much more handsome towns and much more diverse and impressive landscapes. It is arguably the most beautiful country on earth per square mile (only Italy might match it)
London is a better city than Paris, in my experience. Though one thing it shares with its prettier but stuffier sibling is the strange mixture of envy and contempt from people in the rest of the country. Just like in Britain people from other regions alternately castigate Paris for getting all the privileges and wealth, and slate it as a shithole they could never imagine living in.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
I have never cited the UK as a model to aspire to. I have said before that we have the worst of all worlds - textbook laissez faire in the sale of national assets, but a serious regulatory and tax burden that makes our own businesses slower to grow.
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
Excruciatingly silly comment.
Ben is not suggesting that growth in tax rates leads to increased economic growth. He is suggesting that the higher level of taxation does.
The fact is that on most indicators the Danes have a stronger economy and better standard of living, all with higher tax rates. Otoh, the real divergence appears to be a result of the Great Recession - either because their response was better, or that the UK's GDP per capita was a mirage before 2008.
I personally think that high rates of unionisation across the labour market are a larger factor for their lower levels of inequality, perhaps even economic growth. But that's a bigger debate.
That's what I challenged him to show, so if he didn't, how was it silly to say as much? I also don't view economic history as starting in 1973 - the UK made its money (not much left now) in the 19th century, and my comments on Denmark's former dynamism were based on that length of timeline.
Sample: "What I saw [20 years ago as an undergraduate] was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Colorblindness with race-obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob."
Judging people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.
What did he say? The tweet doesn't have any quote from him? (That I can see - as a non-twitter/x premium-double-plus-good subscriber anyway).
Donald Trump said (or wrote):-
"In honor of our great veterans on Veteran's Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within. Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
(Retyped by me so E&OE.)
Jeeeeez :-/. I apologise for even making you type that out :-/
The hard part was copying Trump's bizarre capital letters, and I see now I missed one. I'd hoped to be able to copy and paste from Trump's original on his Truth platform but it seems to be down.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
But they'll always have Paris.
After my exciting walk around London yesterday, I would argue that London is the notably superior city. Not as harmoniously beautiful for sure - Peris is peerless in that respect, certainly amongst great large cities - but London is way more interesting, dynamic, strange, compelling
OTOH I readily accept that France is a significantly more beautiful country, overall, than the UK: much more handsome towns and much more diverse and impressive landscapes. It is arguably the most beautiful country on earth per square mile (only Italy might match it)
London is a better city than Paris, in my experience. Though one thing it shares with its prettier but stuffier sibling is the strange mixture of envy and contempt from people in the rest of the country. Just like in Britain people from other regions alternately castigate Paris for getting all the privileges and wealth, and slate it as a shithole they could never imagine living in.
Yes, quite so. It is an uncanny parallel
There aren't any other countries on earth so dominated/haunted by their massive. glamorous capital cities
Austria has Vienna but Vienna ain't London. Portugal has Lisbon but Lisbon ain't Paris. And so on
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
But they'll always have Paris.
After my exciting walk around London yesterday, I would argue that London is the notably superior city. Not as harmoniously beautiful for sure - Peris is peerless in that respect, certainly amongst great large cities - but London is way more interesting, dynamic, strange, compelling
OTOH I readily accept that France is a significantly more beautiful country, overall, than the UK: much more handsome towns and much more diverse and impressive landscapes. It is arguably the most beautiful country on earth per square mile (only Italy might match it)
London is a better city than Paris, in my experience. Though one thing it shares with its prettier but stuffier sibling is the strange mixture of envy and contempt from people in the rest of the country. Just like in Britain people from other regions alternately castigate Paris for getting all the privileges and wealth, and slate it as a shithole they could never imagine living in.
Paris has the Eiffel Tower which is visible from anywhere near the centre. Thanks to more-or-less unconstrained development in London, we have few visible landmarks older than this millennium: the Shard; the London Eye; a whole set of crazy shaped towers in the City.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
I could easily see us raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, stifling the economy and the private sector in the process, and still having shit public services that satisfy no-one - an awful lot would be swallowed up with new due process coupled with internal inflation, pensions and wages.
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
The better comparison is France. Our economic performance is almost identical to France in the last decade or so. We have lower personal taxes and lower spending, but roughly comparable business taxes.
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
They have much, much, better infrastructure (because they've invested in it). They have much bigger issues with immigration because of their location.
They have better weather, more diverse landscapes, better preserved cities and towns, less obesity, longer lives, and nicer wine
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
But they'll always have Paris.
After my exciting walk around London yesterday, I would argue that London is the notably superior city. Not as harmoniously beautiful for sure - Peris is peerless in that respect, certainly amongst great large cities - but London is way more interesting, dynamic, strange, compelling
OTOH I readily accept that France is a significantly more beautiful country, overall, than the UK: much more handsome towns and much more diverse and impressive landscapes. It is arguably the most beautiful country on earth per square mile (only Italy might match it)
London is a better city than Paris, in my experience. Though one thing it shares with its prettier but stuffier sibling is the strange mixture of envy and contempt from people in the rest of the country. Just like in Britain people from other regions alternately castigate Paris for getting all the privileges and wealth, and slate it as a shithole they could never imagine living in.
Paris has the Eiffel Tower which is visible from anywhere near the centre. Thanks to more-or-less unconstrained development in London, we have few visible landmarks older than this millennium: the Shard; the London Eye; a whole set of crazy shaped towers in the City.
And yet the London Eye is now a global icon, and attracts people from across the world, and the Shard is up there
Paris has not anything like that from the last 30 years. Its last major new monument that achieved renown is the Louvre Pyramid from 1989, and even that is just an entrance lobby to a museum (albeit striking and clever)
Comments
As for the Denmark charts, I see slow growth in GDP per capita, and little growth in tax as a percentage of GDP in your chosen timespan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/11/opinion/biden-trump-election-2024-rematch.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v6JQ392mNA&t=2383s
https://youtube.com/shorts/5kX2cOQ4CbQ?si=vhKVHSacjMJHAtpK
The UK is a highly globalised country that needs to remain globally competitive.
But of course it is not 1640.
Britain’s levels of business taxation are now comparable with most of the rest of Europe, and in some cases higher than in Scandinavia. Our indirect taxes are also in line with European norms. But our personal tax, particularly payroll tax and NIC, are significantly lower. That’s where the gap is. But people vote, corporations don’t.
". . . higher minimum wages may be contributing to homelessness, a problem that is, of course, particularly bad in California.
This suggestion comes from Seth J. Hill, a professor of political science at the University of California San Diego, who recently published a striking analysis of cities that raised their minimum wages between 2006 and 2019. He found that in these cities homelessness grew by double-digit percentage points. The effect was larger for cities with bigger minimum-wage increases, and it also appeared to get stronger over time."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/13/higher-minimum-wages-increase-homelessness/
The study: https://osf.io/z2fqj/ (Which I have not read.)
California homelessness: https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-houston-homeless-solutions/ (Houston, Texas is doing far better than major California cities.)
https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/egypt/2023/11/12/el-sisi-and-raisi-meeting-in-riyadh-a-step-towards-boosting-egypt-iran-ties/
Cui bono?
We have the English language and more pragmatic regulation. They have nuclear power, better connections to neighbouring countries and more land.
So please explain to me once again your evidence that "'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent."
And any of those on PB who regularly spout that we have unsustainably high levels of taxation should take a long hard look at Denmark and other similar countries.
We should raise taxes, cut the deficit, reduce debt, invest more in infrastructure. Oh, and cut spending by canning the triple lock.
"Sir Laurence Olivier reciting Shakespeare's Sonnet 116.
It's quite amazing to observe how each word he recites comes as naturally as the leaves to a tree.
'Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.'
https://x.com/Kulambq/status/1723811138989613466?s=20
The Scandinavian countries tax and spend more than us, and achieve better outcomes. The Club Med and Belgium tax and spend more than us and achieve worse outcomes.
Much turns on honesty in public administration.
And yet some doubt he is the paragon of all time.
https://x.com/justinwelby/status/1723438388710146490?s=46
And got absolutely murdered immediately by both sides.
Half of them condemning him for siding with the Zionists, the other half calling him a Jew-hating nazi.
I thought his tweet seemed pretty reasonable.
Despite this they seem a touch grumpier than the Brits, perhaps because they also have
Worse food, drearier suburbs, much worse universities, crappier schools, the French language (dying), an even greater sense of decline, Germany next door, migration hell, and too much shrugging
NEW: PM @RishiSunak has ordered a major tightening up of protest laws, after a day of violence in central London on Saturday. Reports
@TheSun
Sunak has drawn up five areas where legal loopholes need to be closed on policing.
The clampdown would see:
-New laws drawn up to stop protesters climbing on statues, scaffolding and bus stops during protests.
-The law around fireworks, smoke bombs and flares tightened up.
-The threshold at which cops can ban marches and protests due to safety concerns lowered.
-The law on glorifying terrorists like Hamas is also to be tightened as cops say it is too vague to enforce currently.
They are bitter, perhaps understandably
Pressure grows on Rishi Sunak to sack Suella Braverman over Armistice Day violence via
@FT
“She has to go. Irrespective of whether she stirred up the violence, she will be held responsible. She’s the home secretary FFS. She should know better.”
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Park Service released a set of options to bring the hulking animals back into the area — a wild expanse of glaciated peaks, dense forests, and rushing streams and rivers."
There are, broadly, three types of bears in North America, black bears, grizzly bears (which are mostly brown), and polar bears. Wildlife experts advise that, If attacked by a bear, fight back if it's black, lay down if it's brown (play dead), say good night if it's white. (I've encountered black bears while camping; they stole food from other campers but didn't injure anyone. They sometimes are found in this suburban area, but have not proved to be especially dangerous to people here.)
I wouldn't camp anywhere near grizzly bears, and I wouldn't want any living near me. Most living in those rural areas share my opinions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Cascades_National_Park
Unless you can provide a citation ?
Tax revenues % GDP
GDP per Capita
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/an-economic-history-of-denmark/
Ownership of farms:
... two-thirds of all Danish farmers became owner-occupiers compared to only ten percent in the mid-eighteenth century. This development was halted during the next two and a half decades but resumed as the business cycle picked up during the 1840s and 1850s. It was to become of vital importance to the modernization of Danish agriculture towards the end of the nineteenth century that 75 percent of all agricultural land was farmed by owners of middle-sized farms of about 50 acres.
Responding flexibly to global opportunities:
Following the loss of the secured Norwegian market for grain in 1814, Danish exports began to target the British market. The great rush forward came as the British Corn Law was repealed in 1846. The export share of the production value in agriculture rose from roughly 10 to around 30 percent between 1800 and 1870.
Danish Farmers move dynamically away from grain exports and into bacon and butter:
The driving force of growth was that of a small open economy, which responded effectively to a change in international product prices, in this instance caused by the invasion of cheap grain to Western Europe from North America and Eastern Europe. Like Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium, Denmark did not impose a tariff on grain, in spite of the strong agrarian dominance in society and politics.
Proposals to impose tariffs on grain, and later on cattle and butter, were turned down by Danish farmers. The majority seems to have realized the advantages accruing from the free imports of cheap animal feed during the ongoing process of transition from vegetable to animal production, at a time when the prices of animal products did not decline as much as grain prices.
As a small aside - peace:
Denmark, as a neutral nation, escaped the devastating effects of World War I and was even allowed to carry on exports to both sides in the conflict.
No nationalisation post-WW2:
The Danish policy differed from that of some other parts of Europe in that the remains of the planned economy from the war and reconstruction period in the form of rationing and price control were dismantled around 1950 and that no nationalizations took place.
Those are some highlights of a country becoming rich - with the North Sea Oil coming on stream in the 1970's (when your growth chart begins) helping a lot too.
A big state, like a big house and a big car, isn't how you become rich, it's a thing you spend money on when you are rich.
I know that all ageing men shake their fists at clouds, and I am that, and yet it is impossible not to feel that we have lost something important, these last two decades. We have willingly detached ourselves from a great and revered culture, the greatest civilisation of all: European art and architecture, the glory of the Enlightenment, Shakespeare and Dante and Manet and Mozart, we have torn it all down, we have thrown down the statues and replaced them with... what? Tawdry nonsense from inferior cultures, or - worse - nothing at all
I'm not sure someone whose mo is sour whining about pols in countries in which you don't live and an unhealthy obsession with Nazi sadists is in a strong position to criticise.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/11/12/fa-council-member-compares-benjamin-netanyahu-adolf-hitler/
The apology is laughable. And that's the second high ranking official at the FA who has put out anti-Semitic stuff. No wonder they made all sorts of excuses why they couldn't light up Wembley Arch.
I guess you genuinely believe that bullshit but none of the Enlightenment, Shakespeare, Dante, Manet or Mozart have been 'torn down'.
Shakespeare in particular has never been more widely performed. Get a grip!
Perhaps you need a break from PB
It's about 7K for the first, but I don't know enough about your budgets to guess what the second would be.
Neither of us will convince the other. Fortunatley, I am confident the pendulum is moving my way.
There's probably a lesson in there somewhere, but I think that pondering it in public is unwise.
(Other than providing a pretext for banning protests the government of the day doesn’t like,)
OTOH I readily accept that France is a significantly more beautiful country, overall, than the UK: much more handsome towns and much more diverse and impressive landscapes. It is arguably the most beautiful country on earth per square mile (only Italy might match it)
Actually, can that - there are plenty of countries I would never want to live in. We are lucky to live in a developed western country, though we often forget it.
Ben is not suggesting that growth in tax rates leads to increased economic growth. He is suggesting that the higher level of taxation does.
The fact is that on most indicators the Danes have a stronger economy and better standard of living, all with higher tax rates. Otoh, the real divergence appears to be a result of the Great Recession - either because their response was better, or that the UK's GDP per capita was a mirage before 2008.
I personally think that high rates of unionisation across the labour market are a larger factor for their lower levels of inequality, perhaps even economic growth. But that's a bigger debate.
As a child, I had an old record of Vivien Leigh reading the Tale of Peter Rabbit.
It was similarly mellifluous,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67337127
Everything is now about the general election.
None of this will happen of course.
There aren't any other countries on earth so dominated/haunted by their massive. glamorous capital cities
Austria has Vienna but Vienna ain't London. Portugal has Lisbon but Lisbon ain't Paris. And so on
Paris has not anything like that from the last 30 years. Its last major new monument that achieved renown is the Louvre Pyramid from 1989, and even that is just an entrance lobby to a museum (albeit striking and clever)