The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
Ops Telic and Herrick cost at least £21bn.
Even a whip round at The Flask would be pushed to raise that.
I'm massively more familiar with one of those cost centres than the other. Googling it indicates you may have deliberately chosen a piece of government expenditure that is difficult to classify as "wise".
So they should, civil servants should not be giving opinions on policy to the media.
That is to assume it was the civil servant who leaked it.
No-one leaked it, it is an official and publicly available government letter he is mandated to write as part of his role. He is also not actually giving his opinion on the policy. He says it doesnt meet certain thresholds so requires the minister to sign off on it, but that it is perfectly fine for the minister to do so.
People are not very rational about the civil service roles at the moment.
Most are happy. Gyms and aviation are complaining.
Nobody knows less about the aviation business (or any other type of business) than me but my old squadron FB group had a lot of commercial pilots in it. It now has a lot of unemployed commercial pilots in it with apparently zero prospects of employment. A couple of A380 captains with Emirates got their cards and coppers this week. Aviation looks to be fucked beyond salvation. Even when it definitely does return it won't be a return to normal and it won't be anything like its pre-Covid form.
I completely agree.
People were talking about eliminating APD as a bung to airlines.
But in my view the return on the £3.5bn cost would have been minimal. I think people are not travelling and won’t change because it gets cheaper
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
A VAT cut is not the right way to go, however crowd-pleasing it might be in the short term.
First, there is a huge deadweight effect. Most of the purchases would have been made anyway, so all you're doing is cutting prices to individuals. They will save the difference.
Second, depending on the sector, people will often just bring forward future spending, leading to reduced economic growth when you take it away.
Third, there are often surprisingly large administrative costs involved in cutting VAT then raising it again, which is why, when they did it during the financial crisis, a lot of businesses did not even bother cutting their prices.
Fourth, sector-specific cuts lead to reclassifications and other inefficiencies.
Cutting less sexy business taxes, like payroll levies, or increasing capital allowances, gets you much more bang for your buck.
Isn't the point that businesses won't cut their prices and will therefore pocket the difference themselves making the business more viable.
(You could say the same about the stamp duty cut, eventually it gets worked into house-prices and they just go up by the difference - its what happened last time)
In terms of "bringing purchases forward", this is a natural consequence of having inflation of any level in the economy, people buy things now because they will cost more in the future. The alternative, deferring purchases, is worse for the economy and is usually driven by deflation.
The VAT cut is a quick way to save businesses money. The job retention schemes and half price meal system, clunky and unlikely to be terribly effective as it is, are the ways of maintaing consumer spending so that businesses can actually get the revenue in they will be keeping more of.
Targeting it to immediate consumables limits the bringing forward issue
How many people don’t go out for a meal because they went out a month ago? (Budget aside, in which case bringing forward isn’t an issue). The problem is with one time purchases like white goods*
* (it’s a little depressing that I hesitated before using that term for a domestic appliance)
Do suppose we are going to get complaints about "Brown Furniture", as it is the deprecated, devalued, unwanted antiques?
About 20 years ago my Dad bought a warehouse full of brown furniture because it was under appreciated and sure to bounce back in value...
I was pleasantly surprised to hear both Sunak and his interviewer use the term deadweight loss.
The furlough scheme was/is great and has saved us from mass unemployment. But the job retention thing is dreadfully inefficient. The youth job placement looks similar to other failed apprenticeship ideas to me. The cheap meals out might be a good idea, but subsidising eating out is a pretty strange incentive to put in place.
Dogs that didn't bark: universities and adult education? Now is a great time for govt to be getting people back into study, either university or adult education. Aviation? No idea what can help them tbh.
By all means fund the study he mentions. But I don't know that it will make much difference in terms of persuading people to fly.
For one thing, people may not believe the results. For another, people travelling to other countries is going to be discouraged through quarantine, self-isolation and the like.
The reasons people want to fly are also reduced. Weddings and events have been cancelled etc.
Anecdata from group of friends who used to spend their lives on planes:
No-one is going on a plane now unless they really need to travel for personal reasons. Business is mostly been done remotely and couriers are keeping busy shipping documents around for signatures.
Those that really have to fly are trying to find the smallest possible plane, even if it means chartering one themselves.
Airlines are shooting themselves in the foot by not blocking middle seats in Economy - that's the biggest single change people want to see, and they're prepared to pay quite a lot extra not to be sitting right next to a stranger.
Last year I think I did 90 flights - this year it's likely to be a maximum of 2 (and that's only because I have a €400 flight voucher to spend and 2 free nights booked in the Inter Continental Amstel).
My Scandi clients are pressing me to fly out and meet with them in person. They want to start doing board meetings F2F again
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
Most are happy. Gyms and aviation are complaining.
Nobody knows less about the aviation business (or any other type of business) than me but my old squadron FB group had a lot of commercial pilots in it. It now has a lot of unemployed commercial pilots in it with apparently zero prospects of employment. A couple of A380 captains with Emirates got their cards and coppers this week. Aviation looks to be fucked beyond salvation. Even when it definitely does return it won't be a return to normal and it won't be anything like its pre-Covid form.
I completely agree.
People were talking about eliminating APD as a bung to airlines.
But in my view the return on the £3.5bn cost would have been minimal. I think people are not travelling and won’t change because it gets cheaper
Yup, I think there isn't a lot the aviation industry can do except hold out for a vaccine and hope that there is enough capacity in production to get major tourist destinations vaccinated quickly.
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
Flats
Have you ever been there? It’s a shopping centre. A high-end one at that.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
Flats
Have you ever been there? It’s a shopping centre. A high-end one at that.
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
Flats
Have you ever been there? It’s a shopping centre. A high-end one at that.
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
Flats
Have you ever been there? It’s a shopping centre. A high-end one at that.
Well if even John Lewis doesn't think it can make money for the foreseeable future in a high-end shopping centre no other retailer will
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
Flats
Have you ever been there? It’s a shopping centre. A high-end one at that.
Well if even John Lewis doesn't think it can make money for the foreseeable future in a high-end shopping centre no other retailer will
And what relevance does that have to the conversation?
The worst thing the British bureaucratic apparatus ever did was to attach the word 'Permanent' to these people's titles. 'Contingent (on Performance)' would produce an infinitely more productive attitude, and perhaps even dispel their universal assumption that the elected Government exists to serve them, rather than the other way round.
It’s meant to differentiate them from the Secretary of State who is temporary
(Although I remember Anthony Acland telling that that his title - permanent under Secretary of State - was once translated into Japanese as Immortal Junior Typist...)
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
...which enable poor people to have more than one set of clothes. And even have money left over for some of those posh things. Shoes, I believe they are called.
Investigate the price/income ratio of clothes in the Goode Olde Days.
There was a reason that cloth was a wedding gift of choice.
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
Flats
Have you ever been there? It’s a shopping centre. A high-end one at that.
Maybe a hotel?
That could work. Or a casino.
Casinos are rubbish, even "high end" ones. They aren't good for a local area. Hopefully the planning department in the area doesn't go down that route.
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
Flats
Have you ever been there? It’s a shopping centre. A high-end one at that.
Maybe a hotel?
That could work. Or a casino.
It'd be taking a gamble to head into a casino at the moment.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
Err, yes. One more senior CS for the bin. Their job is to implement government policy, not to brief the BBC about how evil it is.
I dont know the details but presumably it is part of his job description to give approval or not on such schemes rather than just a random comment. If so, his duty is indeed to carry out an assessment and give his view, which the minister can then choose to agree with or overrule as he did. Sounds like the process worked as intended. Just blindly saying yes to whatever would be a failed process.
There is a process where he can register a formal objection.
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
Flats
Have you ever been there? It’s a shopping centre. A high-end one at that.
Well if even John Lewis doesn't think it can make money for the foreseeable future in a high-end shopping centre no other retailer will
And what relevance does that have to the conversation?
Everything as there are very few profitable alternatives to fill the gap at present with social distancing
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
Which brings us back to the fun stuff about immigration etc.
Around the world, the productivity/employee cost ratio is remarkably stable. Yes, you can pay peanuts. But the lack of law/finance/healthcare/transport/education means that people in such environments are less productive.
Every now and then, a country gets its bricks in a line - providing a better version of its services as a state. Combined with the low wages, previously predicated on the lack of such facilities, you get a boom.
Then wages rise, and the situation stabilises. This is what is happening in China at the moment.
A quick way round this, is to import cheap labour. They will work for less than the locals for a while. Then they will try and get the local wage. Then you replace them.
Err, yes. One more senior CS for the bin. Their job is to implement government policy, not to brief the BBC about how evil it is.
I dont know the details but presumably it is part of his job description to give approval or not on such schemes rather than just a random comment. If so, his duty is indeed to carry out an assessment and give his view, which the minister can then choose to agree with or overrule as he did. Sounds like the process worked as intended. Just blindly saying yes to whatever would be a failed process.
There is a process where he can register a formal objection.
That is a private letter placed on file.
The problem is that the BBC was told
We have different definitions of the word private! The letter is published here along with countless other letters on a daily basis.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
Which brings us back to the fun stuff about immigration etc.
Around the world, the productivity/employee cost ratio is remarkably stable. Yes, you can pay peanuts. But the lack of law/finance/healthcare/transport/education means that people in such environments are less productive.
Every now and then, a country gets its bricks in a line - providing a better version of its services as a state. Combined with the low wages, previously predicated on the lack of such facilities, you get a boom.
Then wages rise, and the situation stabilises. This is what is happening in China at the moment.
A quick way round this, is to import cheap labour. They will work for less than the locals for a while. Then they will try and get the local wage. Then you replace them.
Hence sweat shops in Leicester.
Hence voters voting for parties to reduce immigration
I see John Lewis are closing their Grand Central Birmingham store at New Street station, that only opened 5 years ago... God knows who is going to fill it now...
Flats
Have you ever been there? It’s a shopping centre. A high-end one at that.
Maybe a hotel?
Plenty of hotels in the centre of Birmingham.
I think they'll turn it into lots of restaurants to go with The Bullring.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
You really believe that?
Depends on the government - e.g. not a kleptocracy - but if we're talking about our government I'd say on balance yes. Even more so if it were a Labour government, obviously, but I'm happy to acknowledge that it applies to this one too.
I think much of it comes down to the mental image one has of government and its spending, of which there are 2 extremes.
(i) Government is malign. It picks our pockets and spaffs the proceeds on waste and red tape.
(ii) Government is benign. It forces us to club together to carry out Good Works.
Of course the truth is somewhere in between. But imo (ii) is closer to a fair assessment and yet it's (i) that is the more popular view. Why is this? I think mainly because soundbites such as "the most frightening words in the world are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you'" are appealing.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
Which brings us back to the fun stuff about immigration etc.
Around the world, the productivity/employee cost ratio is remarkably stable. Yes, you can pay peanuts. But the lack of law/finance/healthcare/transport/education means that people in such environments are less productive.
Every now and then, a country gets its bricks in a line - providing a better version of its services as a state. Combined with the low wages, previously predicated on the lack of such facilities, you get a boom.
Then wages rise, and the situation stabilises. This is what is happening in China at the moment.
A quick way round this, is to import cheap labour. They will work for less than the locals for a while. Then they will try and get the local wage. Then you replace them.
Hence sweat shops in Leicester.
Hence voters voting for parties to reduce immigration
In times past, it was considered obvious by both unions and government in various countries that labour could/would be imported to reduce wages.
We had a nice discussion on here recently about whether DRS has contributed to a reduction in the number of Test Match draws.
Grist to the meal is the dismississal of Burns just now. Umpire gave not out, reasonably enough but Hawkeye knew better.
As all experienced PB punters know, you can lay the draw blind these days.
I assume we can throw rotten fruit at Ben Stokes for choosing to bat.
James Anderson would have had the Windies 15 for 8 in these conditions.
Was watching an old film of the Jack Johnson/Tommy Burns world heavyweight title fight the other day and it was obvious Johnson was carrying Burns much of the way. Apparently this was very common in those days so that the crowd got its money's worth and didn't cut up rough because the fight hadn't lasted long enough.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
...which enable poor people to have more than one set of clothes. And even have money left over for some of those posh things. Shoes, I believe they are called.
Investigate the price/income ratio of clothes in the Goode Olde Days.
There was a reason that cloth was a wedding gift of choice.
You can always make a case for economic activity. Even building half a bridge. But does it really make sense? To go back to our initial word - is it "wise"? And compared to what? (since all is relative).
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
...which enable poor people to have more than one set of clothes. And even have money left over for some of those posh things. Shoes, I believe they are called.
Investigate the price/income ratio of clothes in the Goode Olde Days.
There was a reason that cloth was a wedding gift of choice.
You can always make a case for economic activity. Even building half a bridge. But does it really make sense? To go back to our initial word - is it "wise"? And compared to what? (since all is relative).
Yes to some of that.
But it is worth remembering that the current structure has clothed poor people better than any other in history.
Back in the day, *all* t-shirts were priced like Paul Smith.
Bit like the supermarkets have reduced food prices to the lowest proportion of income in recorded history.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
...which enable poor people to have more than one set of clothes. And even have money left over for some of those posh things. Shoes, I believe they are called.
Investigate the price/income ratio of clothes in the Goode Olde Days.
There was a reason that cloth was a wedding gift of choice.
You can always make a case for economic activity. Even building half a bridge. But does it really make sense? To go back to our initial word - is it "wise"? And compared to what? (since all is relative).
Yes to some of that.
But it is worth remembering that the current structure has clothed poor people better than any other in history.
Back in the day, *all* t-shirts were priced like Paul Smith.
Bit like the supermarkets have reduced food prices to the lowest proportion of income in recorded history.
The sales at the moment are incredible. I've bought two Fred Perry polo shirts for next to nothing.
OT Ladbrokes and Corals (both in the same ownership, of course) seem to have pulled out of Oddschecker.
GVC pulls Ladbrokes, Coral and Betdaq brands from oddschecker
Renewal price could not be reached to showcase operator’s key UK brands on popular pricing grid
Sports betting GVC pulls Ladbrokes, Coral and Betdaq brands from oddschecker Renewal price could not be reached to showcase operator’s key UK brands on popular pricing gridJake Evans08 July 2020EmailPrint Share GVC has surprisingly called time on its deal with oddschecker after deciding to remove its Ladbrokes, Coral and Betdaq brands from the affiliate firm’s pricing grid. GVC’s UK-facing brands will be pulled from 9 July 2020 as EGR understands a price could not be agreed on a renewal between the operator and Flutter Entertainment-owned oddschecker.… https://egr.global/intel/news/gvc-pulls-ladbrokes-coral-and-betdaq-brands-from-oddschecker/ (£££, h-t Betfair forum)
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
Back to my furlough cynicism, those employers who rotated the furlough (half the staff first, then the other half) stand to gain double bubble compared to those who kept the same squad on furlough throughout.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
Yes, I saw that. Disturbing state of affairs.
No, an inevitable state of affairs. Unless you change the preconditions.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
You really believe that?
Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.
I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.
I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
My thoughts exactly. Who cares? If people are somehow happier with a different word being used, then it's just polite to use a different word. I don't understand why some people appear to be irrationally attached to words like "whitelist".
@kinabalu it’s not just “fast fashion” that use that model. It’s the entire fashion industry.
If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.
Indeed. I instinctively love the consumer society but if I elevate and take the helicopter view - which is unhealthy if you do too much of it - I often feel it's an unsatisfactory and illogical way to carry on.
OT Ladbrokes and Corals (both in the same ownership, of course) seem to have pulled out of Oddschecker.
GVC pulls Ladbrokes, Coral and Betdaq brands from oddschecker
Renewal price could not be reached to showcase operator’s key UK brands on popular pricing grid
Sports betting GVC pulls Ladbrokes, Coral and Betdaq brands from oddschecker Renewal price could not be reached to showcase operator’s key UK brands on popular pricing gridJake Evans08 July 2020EmailPrint Share GVC has surprisingly called time on its deal with oddschecker after deciding to remove its Ladbrokes, Coral and Betdaq brands from the affiliate firm’s pricing grid. GVC’s UK-facing brands will be pulled from 9 July 2020 as EGR understands a price could not be agreed on a renewal between the operator and Flutter Entertainment-owned oddschecker.… https://egr.global/intel/news/gvc-pulls-ladbrokes-coral-and-betdaq-brands-from-oddschecker/ (£££, h-t Betfair forum)
I think it's more a practical point. Presumably oddschecker interfaces automatically with the relevant bookmakers (via an API) to collate and update the relevant odds.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
You really believe that?
Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
The biggest problem that the state sector has, is that failure is an acceptable option.
In the long run, private enterprises will (and should) fail, if they can't deliver.
What we need, for example, in banking is *more* bank failures. Smaller banks - when one dies, the Bank of England picks up the pieces, the insurance on the deposits kicks in. Film at 11...
@kinabalu it’s not just “fast fashion” that use that model. It’s the entire fashion industry.
If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.
Trickers made in England. Bladen made in England. New & Lingwood made in England.
No one can say I'm anti English.
However discomfitingly for Farage, Belstaff made in Romania.
I thought Farage was more Bellend than Belstaff
Unfortunately with Branson, Assange and Neil Oliver having entered the middle aged blokes wearing Belstaff arena, the terms may have become interchangeable. I will have to make a style decision very soon.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
@kinabalu it’s not just “fast fashion” that use that model. It’s the entire fashion industry.
If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.
Trickers made in England. Bladen made in England. New & Lingwood made in England.
No one can say I'm anti English.
However discomfitingly for Farage, Belstaff made in Romania.
I thought Farage was more Bellend than Belstaff
Unfortunately with Branson, Assange and Neil Oliver having entered the middle aged blokes wearing Belstaff arena, the terms may have become interchangeable. I will have to make a style decision very soon.
Who or what is Belstaff? I buy my polo shirts at the Chinese shop for €2.50
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.
I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.
I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
Off topic, but I have been incredibly lucky that after a chance encounter with a legal professional based in Essex, he has taken it upon himself to allow me to shadow him on Zoom calls and even pay for my travel down to Essex to meet clients with him regarding wills and powers of attorney.
The experience so far has been phenomenal. It's amazing what a bit of luck and kindness can lead to!
@kinabalu it’s not just “fast fashion” that use that model. It’s the entire fashion industry.
If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.
Trickers made in England. Bladen made in England. New & Lingwood made in England.
No one can say I'm anti English.
However discomfitingly for Farage, Belstaff made in Romania.
I thought Farage was more Bellend than Belstaff
Unfortunately with Branson, Assange and Neil Oliver having entered the middle aged blokes wearing Belstaff arena, the terms may have become interchangeable. I will have to make a style decision very soon.
Edit: I see Branson is 69 so he aint getting middle aged.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
...which enable poor people to have more than one set of clothes. And even have money left over for some of those posh things. Shoes, I believe they are called.
Investigate the price/income ratio of clothes in the Goode Olde Days.
There was a reason that cloth was a wedding gift of choice.
You can always make a case for economic activity. Even building half a bridge. But does it really make sense? To go back to our initial word - is it "wise"? And compared to what? (since all is relative).
Yes to some of that.
But it is worth remembering that the current structure has clothed poor people better than any other in history.
Back in the day, *all* t-shirts were priced like Paul Smith.
Bit like the supermarkets have reduced food prices to the lowest proportion of income in recorded history.
The sales at the moment are incredible. I've bought two Fred Perry polo shirts for next to nothing.
'At far-right rallies across the U.S., an English tennis champion named Fred Perry hovers, invisible to the men unwittingly representing him. For the last two years, members of the Proud Boys cult of masculinity have worn Perry-branded striped-collar polo shirts with a Wimbledon-inspired laurel insignia as they shout at anti-fascist protesters and take rocks to the head. In blog posts and tweets dating back to 2014, their patriarch Gavin McInnes has instructed them that this — a Fred Perry cotton pique tennis shirt, always in black and yellow — is the proper armor for battling multiculturalism.'
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
Boots cutting 4000 jobs. I would hate to be applying for a job now. I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work. In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
You really believe that?
Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
The biggest problem that the state sector has, is that failure is an acceptable option.
In the long run, private enterprises will (and should) fail, if they can't deliver.
What we need, for example, in banking is *more* bank failures. Smaller banks - when one dies, the Bank of England picks up the pieces, the insurance on the deposits kicks in. Film at 11...
I've worked in both the public and private sectors. The private sector is certainly more focused on cost control, but the public sector organisation was definitely doing something more useful. Both involve human beings and are hence imperfect.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
...which enable poor people to have more than one set of clothes. And even have money left over for some of those posh things. Shoes, I believe they are called.
Investigate the price/income ratio of clothes in the Goode Olde Days.
There was a reason that cloth was a wedding gift of choice.
You can always make a case for economic activity. Even building half a bridge. But does it really make sense? To go back to our initial word - is it "wise"? And compared to what? (since all is relative).
Yes to some of that.
But it is worth remembering that the current structure has clothed poor people better than any other in history.
Back in the day, *all* t-shirts were priced like Paul Smith.
Bit like the supermarkets have reduced food prices to the lowest proportion of income in recorded history.
The sales at the moment are incredible. I've bought two Fred Perry polo shirts for next to nothing.
'At far-right rallies across the U.S., an English tennis champion named Fred Perry hovers, invisible to the men unwittingly representing him. For the last two years, members of the Proud Boys cult of masculinity have worn Perry-branded striped-collar polo shirts with a Wimbledon-inspired laurel insignia as they shout at anti-fascist protesters and take rocks to the head. In blog posts and tweets dating back to 2014, their patriarch Gavin McInnes has instructed them that this — a Fred Perry cotton pique tennis shirt, always in black and yellow — is the proper armor for battling multiculturalism.'
I care not. They fit well, as most polo shirts in "slim fit" are far too slim for me.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear both Sunak and his interviewer use the term deadweight loss.
The furlough scheme was/is great and has saved us from mass unemployment. But the job retention thing is dreadfully inefficient. The youth job placement looks similar to other failed apprenticeship ideas to me. The cheap meals out might be a good idea, but subsidising eating out is a pretty strange incentive to put in place.
Dogs that didn't bark: universities and adult education? Now is a great time for govt to be getting people back into study, either university or adult education. Aviation? No idea what can help them tbh.
By all means fund the study he mentions. But I don't know that it will make much difference in terms of persuading people to fly.
For one thing, people may not believe the results. For another, people travelling to other countries is going to be discouraged through quarantine, self-isolation and the like.
The reasons people want to fly are also reduced. Weddings and events have been cancelled etc.
Anecdata from group of friends who used to spend their lives on planes:
No-one is going on a plane now unless they really need to travel for personal reasons. Business is mostly been done remotely and couriers are keeping busy shipping documents around for signatures.
Those that really have to fly are trying to find the smallest possible plane, even if it means chartering one themselves.
Airlines are shooting themselves in the foot by not blocking middle seats in Economy - that's the biggest single change people want to see, and they're prepared to pay quite a lot extra not to be sitting right next to a stranger.
Last year I think I did 90 flights - this year it's likely to be a maximum of 2 (and that's only because I have a €400 flight voucher to spend and 2 free nights booked in the Inter Continental Amstel).
My Scandi clients are pressing me to fly out and meet with them in person. They want to start doing board meetings F2F again
Swedish ?
Danish, Norwegians and Finns so far... but I was on the phone with some Swedes today and they were muttering that o haven’t been in Stockholm for a while
Boots cutting 4000 jobs. I would hate to be applying for a job now. I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work. In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.
You're telling me! Luckily the Government post-graduate student loan will sustain me for the next 12 months assuming it won't get axed.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
You really believe that?
Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
The biggest problem that the state sector has, is that failure is an acceptable option.
In the long run, private enterprises will (and should) fail, if they can't deliver.
What we need, for example, in banking is *more* bank failures. Smaller banks - when one dies, the Bank of England picks up the pieces, the insurance on the deposits kicks in. Film at 11...
I've worked in both the public and private sectors. The private sector is certainly more focused on cost control, but the public sector organisation was definitely doing something more useful. Both involve human beings and are hence imperfect.
I would say the state actors tend to *believe* that what they are doing is useful.
Indeed one problem is that state actors tend to believe that since they are part of the state, their actions are justified.
@kinabalu it’s not just “fast fashion” that use that model. It’s the entire fashion industry.
If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.
Trickers made in England. Bladen made in England. New & Lingwood made in England.
No one can say I'm anti English.
However discomfitingly for Farage, Belstaff made in Romania.
I thought Farage was more Bellend than Belstaff
Unfortunately with Branson, Assange and Neil Oliver having entered the middle aged blokes wearing Belstaff arena, the terms may have become interchangeable. I will have to make a style decision very soon.
He killed stone dead velvet collars on covert coats.
It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.
I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
...which enable poor people to have more than one set of clothes. And even have money left over for some of those posh things. Shoes, I believe they are called.
Investigate the price/income ratio of clothes in the Goode Olde Days.
There was a reason that cloth was a wedding gift of choice.
You can always make a case for economic activity. Even building half a bridge. But does it really make sense? To go back to our initial word - is it "wise"? And compared to what? (since all is relative).
Yes to some of that.
But it is worth remembering that the current structure has clothed poor people better than any other in history.
Back in the day, *all* t-shirts were priced like Paul Smith.
Bit like the supermarkets have reduced food prices to the lowest proportion of income in recorded history.
The sales at the moment are incredible. I've bought two Fred Perry polo shirts for next to nothing.
'At far-right rallies across the U.S., an English tennis champion named Fred Perry hovers, invisible to the men unwittingly representing him. For the last two years, members of the Proud Boys cult of masculinity have worn Perry-branded striped-collar polo shirts with a Wimbledon-inspired laurel insignia as they shout at anti-fascist protesters and take rocks to the head. In blog posts and tweets dating back to 2014, their patriarch Gavin McInnes has instructed them that this — a Fred Perry cotton pique tennis shirt, always in black and yellow — is the proper armor for battling multiculturalism.'
Uh-oh indeed. Like stone Island being worn because its logo is the same as the BM.
@kinabalu it’s not just “fast fashion” that use that model. It’s the entire fashion industry.
If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.
Trickers made in England. Bladen made in England. New & Lingwood made in England.
No one can say I'm anti English.
However discomfitingly for Farage, Belstaff made in Romania.
I thought Farage was more Bellend than Belstaff
Unfortunately with Branson, Assange and Neil Oliver having entered the middle aged blokes wearing Belstaff arena, the terms may have become interchangeable. I will have to make a style decision very soon.
Who or what is Belstaff? I buy my polo shirts at the Chinese shop for €2.50
It was a brand of British motorbike clothing mainly based on waxed cotton or leather, but now includes all sorts of fancy materials. It's reassuringly expensive and mainly worn by rich, posey tossers who don't ride bikes (I am only one of these things).
It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.
I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
One way you may have encountered it, without realising, is spam filtering systems for email.
If you add an email to the list for "always allow emails from this address through" - that is often called the whitelist. The equivalent for senders who are always banned is the blacklist.
Quite a few applications actually use the terms in the user interface.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
You really believe that?
Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
The biggest problem that the state sector has, is that failure is an acceptable option.
In the long run, private enterprises will (and should) fail, if they can't deliver.
What we need, for example, in banking is *more* bank failures. Smaller banks - when one dies, the Bank of England picks up the pieces, the insurance on the deposits kicks in. Film at 11...
I've worked in both the public and private sectors. The private sector is certainly more focused on cost control, but the public sector organisation was definitely doing something more useful. Both involve human beings and are hence imperfect.
Me too. Lot of crap talked about both. They each have strengths and weaknesses. Stereotypical thinking about them isn't helpful.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
You really believe that?
Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
A fair summary. On waste, though, I did see eye watering amounts of it in the City during my time. In the boom times hidden by revenues.
Boots cutting 4000 jobs. I would hate to be applying for a job now. I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work. In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.
Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.
When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.
The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear both Sunak and his interviewer use the term deadweight loss.
The furlough scheme was/is great and has saved us from mass unemployment. But the job retention thing is dreadfully inefficient. The youth job placement looks similar to other failed apprenticeship ideas to me. The cheap meals out might be a good idea, but subsidising eating out is a pretty strange incentive to put in place.
Dogs that didn't bark: universities and adult education? Now is a great time for govt to be getting people back into study, either university or adult education. Aviation? No idea what can help them tbh.
By all means fund the study he mentions. But I don't know that it will make much difference in terms of persuading people to fly.
For one thing, people may not believe the results. For another, people travelling to other countries is going to be discouraged through quarantine, self-isolation and the like.
The reasons people want to fly are also reduced. Weddings and events have been cancelled etc.
Anecdata from group of friends who used to spend their lives on planes:
No-one is going on a plane now unless they really need to travel for personal reasons. Business is mostly been done remotely and couriers are keeping busy shipping documents around for signatures.
Those that really have to fly are trying to find the smallest possible plane, even if it means chartering one themselves.
Airlines are shooting themselves in the foot by not blocking middle seats in Economy - that's the biggest single change people want to see, and they're prepared to pay quite a lot extra not to be sitting right next to a stranger.
Last year I think I did 90 flights - this year it's likely to be a maximum of 2 (and that's only because I have a €400 flight voucher to spend and 2 free nights booked in the Inter Continental Amstel).
My Scandi clients are pressing me to fly out and meet with them in person. They want to start doing board meetings F2F again
Swedish ?
Danish, Norwegians and Finns so far... but I was on the phone with some Swedes today and they were muttering that o haven’t been in Stockholm for a while
Arramnge to meet in Malmo, basically untouched by the corona
@kinabalu it’s not just “fast fashion” that use that model. It’s the entire fashion industry.
If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.
Trickers made in England. Bladen made in England. New & Lingwood made in England.
No one can say I'm anti English.
However discomfitingly for Farage, Belstaff made in Romania.
I thought Farage was more Bellend than Belstaff
Unfortunately with Branson, Assange and Neil Oliver having entered the middle aged blokes wearing Belstaff arena, the terms may have become interchangeable. I will have to make a style decision very soon.
Who or what is Belstaff? I buy my polo shirts at the Chinese shop for €2.50
It was a brand of British motorbike clothing mainly based on waxed cotton or leather, but now includes all sorts of fancy materials. It's reassuringly expensive and mainly worn by rich, posey tossers who don't ride bikes (I am only one of these things).
I remember now actually standard motorbike wear in 60/70 s nothing posh about it then iirc
Boots cutting 4000 jobs. I would hate to be applying for a job now. I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work. In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.
Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.
When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.
The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
Well @HYUFD has assured us that the deficit is an irrelevance so we can just borrow to our heart's content. Nee bother.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
You really believe that?
Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
The biggest problem that the state sector has, is that failure is an acceptable option.
In the long run, private enterprises will (and should) fail, if they can't deliver.
What we need, for example, in banking is *more* bank failures. Smaller banks - when one dies, the Bank of England picks up the pieces, the insurance on the deposits kicks in. Film at 11...
I've worked in both the public and private sectors. The private sector is certainly more focused on cost control, but the public sector organisation was definitely doing something more useful. Both involve human beings and are hence imperfect.
I would say the state actors tend to *believe* that what they are doing is useful.
Indeed one problem is that state actors tend to believe that since they are part of the state, their actions are justified.
You're being too cynical. You can say exactly the same of people in the private sector. In fact in my experience it's the other way round, people at the top of private sector firms have the most over-inflated ideas about their own virtuousness.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
Yes, I saw that. Disturbing state of affairs.
No, an inevitable state of affairs. Unless you change the preconditions.
Boots cutting 4000 jobs. I would hate to be applying for a job now. I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work. In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.
Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.
When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.
The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
Boots cutting 4000 jobs. I would hate to be applying for a job now. I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work. In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.
Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.
When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.
The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.
A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.
Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).
What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".
Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.
Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.
Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.
No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film
Not all government spending is productive or useful
This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
Yes, I saw that. Disturbing state of affairs.
No, an inevitable state of affairs. Unless you change the preconditions.
It involved law-breaking, I think?
It's our old friend "selective law enforcement"
You may remember I mentioned as relative in the building trade, the other day, who was told that illegal wages and conditions for foreign workers were (in effect) to be ignored?
Same thing, I will bet.
The sick joke is that it is minorities who end up being mis-treated.
Comments
People are not very rational about the civil service roles at the moment.
People were talking about eliminating APD as a bung to airlines.
But in my view the return on the £3.5bn cost would have been minimal. I think people are not travelling and won’t change because it gets cheaper
Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.
(Although I remember Anthony Acland telling that that his title - permanent under Secretary of State - was once translated into Japanese as Immortal Junior Typist...)
Investigate the price/income ratio of clothes in the Goode Olde Days.
There was a reason that cloth was a wedding gift of choice.
www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/military-spending-defense-budget
That is a private letter placed on file.
The problem is that the BBC was told
The juxtaposition has now left me humming an unfortunate earworm:
"Halley's comet, I reflect
To stop Younger's bar from being wrecked"
Though, I'm sure, being a Scottish advert, the deflection probably didn't involve a cricket bat.
Grist to the meal is the dismississal of Burns just now. Umpire gave not out, reasonably enough but Hawkeye knew better.
As all experienced PB punters know, you can lay the draw blind these days.
Around the world, the productivity/employee cost ratio is remarkably stable. Yes, you can pay peanuts. But the lack of law/finance/healthcare/transport/education means that people in such environments are less productive.
Every now and then, a country gets its bricks in a line - providing a better version of its services as a state. Combined with the low wages, previously predicated on the lack of such facilities, you get a boom.
Then wages rise, and the situation stabilises. This is what is happening in China at the moment.
A quick way round this, is to import cheap labour. They will work for less than the locals for a while. Then they will try and get the local wage. Then you replace them.
Hence sweat shops in Leicester.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/job-retention-bonus-ministerial-direction
There is no problem apart from people leaping to convenient conclusions without understanding what has happened.
https://twitter.com/monstroso/status/1280967754187751426
James Anderson would have had the Windies 15 for 8 in these conditions.
I think they'll turn it into lots of restaurants to go with The Bullring.
I think much of it comes down to the mental image one has of government and its spending, of which there are 2 extremes.
(i) Government is malign. It picks our pockets and spaffs the proceeds on waste and red tape.
(ii) Government is benign. It forces us to club together to carry out Good Works.
Of course the truth is somewhere in between. But imo (ii) is closer to a fair assessment and yet it's (i) that is the more popular view. Why is this? I think mainly because soundbites such as "the most frightening words in the world are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you'" are appealing.
Bladen made in England.
New & Lingwood made in England.
No one can say I'm anti English.
However discomfitingly for Farage, Belstaff made in Romania.
They'll be popular.
Hence the idea of controlled immigration.
Maybe Stokes also watched it.
Arrived at New Street station and the meeting got delayed two hours, so I decided to grab something to eat in Yo! Sushi.
Had a bit of accident with the dynamite roll which ended up on my shirt, dashed into John Lewis and bought a new shirt.
I'll miss that John Lewis.
You tell her it'll be wonderful and then you pull out and it gets very messy.
Now it has neither...
But it is worth remembering that the current structure has clothed poor people better than any other in history.
Back in the day, *all* t-shirts were priced like Paul Smith.
Bit like the supermarkets have reduced food prices to the lowest proportion of income in recorded history.
History has taught us it’s better to be FDR
It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.
I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
In the long run, private enterprises will (and should) fail, if they can't deliver.
What we need, for example, in banking is *more* bank failures. Smaller banks - when one dies, the Bank of England picks up the pieces, the insurance on the deposits kicks in. Film at 11...
The experience so far has been phenomenal. It's amazing what a bit of luck and kindness can lead to!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/29/far-right-fred-perry-mainstream-fashion-camouflage-brands
https://theoutline.com/post/1760/fred-perry-polo-skinheads?zd=1&zi=xtpjyeok
'At far-right rallies across the U.S., an English tennis champion named Fred Perry hovers, invisible to the men unwittingly representing him. For the last two years, members of the Proud Boys cult of masculinity have worn Perry-branded striped-collar polo shirts with a Wimbledon-inspired laurel insignia as they shout at anti-fascist protesters and take rocks to the head. In blog posts and tweets dating back to 2014, their patriarch Gavin McInnes has instructed them that this — a Fred Perry cotton pique tennis shirt, always in black and yellow — is the proper armor for battling multiculturalism.'
I would hate to be applying for a job now.
I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.
Indeed one problem is that state actors tend to believe that since they are part of the state, their actions are justified.
If you add an email to the list for "always allow emails from this address through" - that is often called the whitelist. The equivalent for senders who are always banned is the blacklist.
Quite a few applications actually use the terms in the user interface.
When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.
The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
Your comment wasn't borderline ludicrous it was to ludicrous as what Mr Kipling's is to good cakes ...
If Carlsberg were to make ludicrous statements ...
You may remember I mentioned as relative in the building trade, the other day, who was told that illegal wages and conditions for foreign workers were (in effect) to be ignored?
Same thing, I will bet.
The sick joke is that it is minorities who end up being mis-treated.