Because The United Kingdom?

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

I vote no, unless all new skycrapers use the blueprints from The Gherkin.

Then again, what if all new skyscrapers were required to be mushroom-shaped? Lets turn Londinium into a Lewis Carroll theme park.

 

 

The tragedy is, there are so many skyscrapers, you can barely see the gerkin from afar. The same fate that befell St Paul's decades ago.

I just wish they would leave the London skyline alone now. Why can't they screw up Paris or Bruges for a change?

[rmgill]

First off, you are making an argument thats not well founded. You are arguing against a parody of an economic concept. 
 

The things you describe aren’t artifacts of trickle down or supply side economics but rather a break down of society which frankly IS a result of your decades of socialist policies. 

[rmgill]

So, if people being able to invest and see a return doesn’t deliver growth, what does? 

[Ssnake]

12 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Let's put it like this, I spent most of my childhood being told trickledown was great.

Told by whom?

Thomas Sowell offered a bet in a newspaper trying to find the economist that at least once had proposed this term in an economic model or paper or anything, because he could never find the original source. He never had to pay out the money.

 

"Trickledown economy" has probably been the most successful strawman argument in the history of economics-related debates (goes back to at least the Roosevelt administration).

 

Here:

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Told by whom?

Thomas Sowell offered a bet in a newspaper trying to find the economist that at least once had proposed this term in an economic model or paper or anything, because he could never find the original source. He never had to pay out the money.

 

"Trickledown economy" has probably been the most successful strawman argument in the history of economics-related debates (goes back to at least the Roosevelt administration).

 

Here:

 

Conservative MP's, Conservative press, conservative pundits. American Senators, American press... It was all the rage here in the 1980's. This was to be our salvation.  And if they didnt ever use the world 'trickledown' that was indeed the guiding light. The city of London would become a big financial powerhouse, and drive the country forward. Which to an extent happened, if you overlook that it wasnt London that was investing in the regions, which was surely the whole point of the theory.

Perhaps this never grew popular in Europe, but I think Europeans forget how central this became to Anglo American economics. The Americans of course, to some extent at least, eventually grew out of it, particularly when Bill Clinton got in. Then cuts and fiscal stimulus became the way forward, at least under the Democrats. Here? Fiscal stimulus was a filthy word. And to be fair, the Conservatives DID latently try it, once, in the 1980's. The most well known example was the Delorean car factory in Northern Ireland, which seems to have put them off it for good. Labour didnt do it either, contrary to what the Conservatives would have you believe. The nearest they ever got to fiscal stimulus was IIRC, triming stamp duty to help people on the housign ladder, or the never to be completed HS2. And that was pretty much it.

There has been an attempt by the political right, here and in America, to pretend they 'never' used the term 'trickledown economics', and so it couldnt possibly have existed as a policy. But its fairly clear looking at the Wiki entry it was well in use in America in the 1980's, even if they desperately tried to find alternative names for it. They always have tried to find alternative names for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign for the presidency on a platform advocating for supply-side economics. During the Presidential nomination in 1980, George H. W. Bush had derided Reagan's economic approach as "voodoo economics".^[24][25] Following Reagan's election, the "trickle-down" reached wide circulation with the publication of "The Education of David Stockman" a December 1981 interview of Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman, in the magazine Atlantic Monthly. In the interview, Stockman was sharply critical of supply side economics, telling journalist William Greider that the Kemp–Roth Tax Cut was a way to rebrand a tax cut for the top income bracket to make it easier to pass into law:^[26][27]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.

— David Stockman, The Atlantic

Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.^[28] In 1982, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote the "trickle-down economics" that David Stockman was referring to was previously known under the name "horse-and-sparrow theory", the idea that feeding a horse a huge amount of oats will result in some of the feed passing through for lucky sparrows to eat.^[29] Reagan administration officials including Michael Deaver wanted Stockman to be fired in response to his comments, but he was ultimately kept on in exchange for a private apology.^[30]

 

You might find the following article a counterfactual for the video you linked.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/20/joe-biden-trickle-down-economics-build-up

 

It kind of reminds me of Keyser Soze, the the greatest trick the devil ever perpetuated, etc etc. The same is true of trickledown. And still the list of billionares grows ever longer, and still the stagnation and the excuses go ever onward. Because nobody has any other ideas what to do in a post industrial economy, such as we now are.

You might say, we are in a bit of a fix.

 

 

[Ssnake]

Reagan's tax cuts worked. A lot of people on the left didn't expect that so they kept warning everybody about the impending disaster that never came; unsurprising to find such pamphlets in a paper like The Atlantic. But most of what was brought up against Reagan's economic policies has not withstood the test of time.

Reagan's policies however worked in the US. Thatcher may have copied them, but the way they were applied in the UK may not have been fitting the UK  (though I think she had a point in her early years that the way the labor unions in Britain tried to steer the economy was a disaster for the country as a whole and had to be stopped).

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Reagan's tax cuts worked. A lot of people on the left didn't expect that so they kept warning everybody about the impending disaster that never came; unsurprising to find such pamphlets in a paper like The Atlantic. But most of what was brought up against Reagan's economic policies has not withstood the test of time.

Reagan's policies however worked in the US. Thatcher may have copied them, but the way they were applied in the UK may not have been fitting the UK  (though I think she had a point in her early years that the way the labor unions in Britain tried to steer the economy was a disaster for the country as a whole and had to be stopped).

Not disputing whether it worked in the US. I can only comment on whether it worked here, and arguing by effect, it clearly did not. I can admit it APPEARED to work, through smoke and mirrors, whilst we had a gazzilon gallons of taxdollars going into our revenue. Since that has disappeared, and that started falling off in the early 2000's, the economy has languished.

Im also not disputing the idea the Labour unions were out of control. Well aware they were, and someone had to tackle them. The problem was that what was appropriate in the very late 70's and early 1980's, was not appropriate for all time. We now have some of the toughest legislation against wildcat strikes in the world here. The Unions have not been a major factor, other than perhaps on the railway or the fire brigade, in UK politics in some 4 decades. But has it made the country any more competitive industrially? Arguably not. Its just driven the share of the pie by the working class down and down. But still the ideology that the Unions must be crushed remains.

In the US, the ideology is that the Unions built the middle class. Biden continually bangs on about it. In the UK, the ideology is that the Unions are a threat to the middle class. Its language and response more appropriate to the 1920's, not the 2020's.

 

 

Edited May 9 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

I will ask again. If you don’t have supply side economics, how does it work then? 
 

If private investors is not the mechanism, why did Brunel build what he built? 
 

Why not tax at 100 percent and nationalize everything? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, rmgill said:

I will ask again. If you don’t have supply side economics, how does it work then? 
 

If private investors is not the mechanism, why did Brunel build what he built? 
 

Why not tax at 100 percent and nationalize everything? 

Brunel could Not BUILD what he built here today. Do you know why? Because he would have gone asking for investors, they would have shrugged their shoulders, and gone and invested in China, where they could get a better rate of return. Why? Because the pound was so expensive, they could more yen for their buck than they could Pounds. That I think is self evident. Its the over inflated price of the pound that is a core result of running the country primarily on financial services, than exports, like other sane countries do.

There you go again. Because I dont agree that Margaret Thatchers policies extended to the present day are a good idea, ergo I must be a communist whom wants to nationalize and 100 percent tax everything (something of a contradiction that). No I dont. But I do recognise that, unless Government starts the ball rolling of an economic boom by investing in infrastructure (a mistake your country continually makes also), then investors wont come here and do the rest of the job. Want an example of where it isnt done? Look to Britain. We are the poster child of lack of Government investment. Want an example of where it was and is done? South Korea and Japan.

I dont want a Socialist Utopia. I want to be the next South Korea. Is that really too much to expect? Dont we actually deserve that?

Edited May 10 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

54 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Brunel could Not BUILD what he built here today.

Yes, but he built what he built back then under the conditions of his times, and then other factors played a role (like local demand) even if the Pound may have been even stronger over China's currency at the time than it is today, and investment opportunities in China were lee abundant at the time.

All advanced economies are now competing with the emerging middle classes of Asia, and eventually South America and Africa too. Specifically, all local labor is competing with the global labor market. We can try and restrict global trade (good luck with that, I don't think it's going to be very successful), or we can try and provide better investment conditions locally. Instead, we invent layer after layer of new red tape while also abandoning cheap energy in pursuit of an idiotic carbon scam. It's like purposefully aiming a machine gun on one's foot.

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, I dont believe in tarrifs either, thats a bloody silly Trump idea. And I certainly DO agree that we need to make investment opportunities better through better political infrastructure. Which again, is another thing the UK could really stop kicking into the long grass.

Ryan remains wedded to the idea im a typical Socialist. I certainly reject everything we did in the 1970's. At the same time, I remain wedded to the idea that the Uk MUST achieve high growth, so the British people actually have a rising living standard instead of the declining one. (That and carry its burden of European defence). That might be a common European problem, but now we are not actually in the EU, we could be exploring atypical solutions to solve it. Which we arent.

[Rick]

There are the European ideas of Socialism and then there is the U.S. idea of Socialism.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

I dont think my idea of Socialism is even very Socialist for Europe. Right now, all I believe is creating an economy that has high growth, and increasingly good wages, and good services. Yes, inevitably higher taxation, true. But only when the economy can afford it, and only when its adding something useful that people need, like transport, health services, police and Defence. I dont care frankly whatever party can deliver that, even Conservative, if they still can deliver such things. But thats what we need, and thats what we shoudl have.

For a European, thats Liberalism. For an American, a Liberal is someone that thinks a high capacity magazine is a bad thing.

 

Edited May 10 by Stuart Galbraith

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...a Liberal is someone that thinks a high capacity magazine is a bad thing.

What is a high capacity magazine? 100 rounder? 30 rounder? 10 rounder?

Why is it a "bad" thing?

What kind of moron do you have to be to think that non-living object can be either morally "bad" or morally "good"?

[Ivanhoe]

The good/evil duality is always context-dependent.

Islamist/Marxist freedom fighter mags are Lawful Good, south Texas rancher* mags are Chaotic Evil, since they might be used to ventilate one or more oppressed POC cartelistas.

* Many of whom are darker-skinned than Obama, yet are assumed white by the pearl-clutchers.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

42 minutes ago, bojan said:

What is a high capacity magazine? 100 rounder? 30 rounder? 10 rounder?

Why is it a "bad" thing?

What kind of moron do you have to be to think that non-living object can be either morally "bad" or morally "good"?

Jesus, even my one liners get deconstructed on Tanknet, free of charge. Who needs a therapist?

 

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Brunel could Not BUILD what he built here today. Do you know why? Because he would have gone asking for investors, they would have shrugged their shoulders, and gone and invested in China, where they could get a better rate of return. Why? Because the pound was so expensive, they could more yen for their buck than they could Pounds. That I think is self evident. Its the over inflated price of the pound that is a core result of running the country primarily on financial services, than exports, like other sane countries do.

Then you, as a nation have to figure out why the reasons are obstacle to investment and REMOVE those obstacles. 

And I don't think that a high currency rate is a barrier like I think, the the ROI that's the barrier. And again, you have to figure out why the ROI is low and solve THAT problem. 

You still have not answered WHY Brunel invested. 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There you go again. Because I dont agree that Margaret Thatchers policies extended to the present day are a good idea, ergo I must be a communist whom wants to nationalize and 100 percent tax everything (something of a contradiction that).

No, I'm asking you to explain how such a system would work. 

You've argued that government investment is the only good investment. Private persons won't or can't so the government is the only avenue. Well if that's the case, explain or steel man why total government investment would be workable or not. 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

No I dont. But I do recognise that, unless Government starts the ball rolling of an economic boom by investing in infrastructure (a mistake your country continually makes also), then investors wont come here and do the rest of the job.

People will build infrastructure if they feel they can get money out of it. In the US we have a 3rd nuke plant in my state and a 4th going on line soon. Georgia Power felt that such infrastructure was worth the pay out. However, NIMBYs and commies and green haters have blocked that 3rd and 4th reactors for decades. Ga Power finally got the ball rolling. 

What plants are being built in the UK? What infrastructure or power plants are being built? In the US we have a pipeline that runs from the gulf coast all the way to new jersey for petroleum products. It enables out movement of vast quantities of fuels and lubricants (they can alternate what they pump through the pipeline) at lower cost to operations than bulk shipment by truck or train. Why do you think Colonial put that system in? 
 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Want an example of where it isnt done? Look to Britain. We are the poster child of lack of Government investment. Want an example of where it was and is done? South Korea and Japan.

Well, again, why? Ideally it'll be government AND business working hand in glove. Government makes figures out the objective, then figures out how to attract investment and gets the field setup so busiensses WILL do the thing that they want and can make money out of the deal. 

You're a rail geek, look at the US's continental railroad initiative. Howd that happen? 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont want a Socialist Utopia. I want to be the next South Korea. Is that really too much to expect? Dont we actually deserve that?

Then get rid of the obstacles and figure out a plan. Look at your own council area. How would you attract a business or factory to your area? Whats your major regions most produced raw material? How do you leverage that? 

Start there. 

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, I dont believe in tarrifs either, thats a bloody silly Trump idea. And I certainly DO agree that we need to make investment opportunities better through better political infrastructure. Which again, is another thing the UK could really stop kicking into the long grass.

But you beleive in local/national taxes? 

How's that work. 

You tax your local businesses and don't tax the imports? Oh, that's good. There's one of your problems. 

Tax all your local businesses and farms at 40%. Don't tax anything from outside the region. Hows that going to work for the cost of the locally produced goods and produce? 

Think about it. 

High local/national taxes are a drain on your own economy and parasitize your own economy over the competing international goods. 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ryan remains wedded to the idea im a typical Socialist.

No, I just think your idea of how money moves around and what incentives actually exist is tinted by socialist glasses and you don't have a clue about ownership. Witness your unhappiness at the neighbor who cut down a storm damaged tree. You wanted him to spend ££££ to save it. Did you offer to help? Or donate to assist? 
 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I certainly reject everything we did in the 1970's. At the same time, I remain wedded to the idea that the Uk MUST achieve high growth, so the British people actually have a rising living standard instead of the declining one. (That and carry its burden of European defence). That might be a common European problem, but now we are not actually in the EU, we could be exploring atypical solutions to solve it. Which we arent.

Because your leadership has made everything so difficult that the costs outweigh the ROI or make the entry costs too steep. Again, look at Clarkson farm. How could anyone start a farm without Millions of £ in the bank? They couldn't. The regulatory costs are too high to start a small operation within one's means and then grow it. 

[Murph]

For all my Brit Friends:         

 

[Murph]

Me today:

 

[seahawk]

Good you left the EU, so you do not face fines for missing the goal of the ridiculous, anti-business Water Framework Directive.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, let's fill our World famed beauty spots with raw sewage instead. That will show those Euro buffoons!

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Murph said:

For all my Brit Friends:         

 

Insane lines. We all know one of those would be a Mac10 Murph.

 

[Murph]

LOL!  Nope H&K MP-5 compact all the way in 10mm!  

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, let's fill our World famed beauty spots with raw sewage instead. That will show those Euro buffoons!

Maybe if you returned to Victorian values that built what you have as an aging sewage system you'd be better off?