UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Lamadia]

You can't just take these sectors away from the companies. Would you pay them? How much? What if they refuse?
Totalitarianism, is what it is. Pure totalitarianism, with a hint of badly thought-up economic theory.

I hate to break it to you darling, but Hayek was wrong.

Unless you think Britain in 1946 was a totalitarian country when it passed this type of law.

Property is already subject to compulsory purchase in the United Kingdom. With due compensation the Crown may take anyone's land if it wishes.

Which is wrong, and should be changed so it only works if in a state of emergency, such as an essential building project.
And Britain, in 1946, was leaning towards restricting freedoms in a way it had just fought. And we saw the results in the 1970s, didn't we?

[Elepis]

Implying it would break.

You can't just take these sectors away from the companies. Would you pay them? How much? What if they refuse?
Totalitarianism, is what it is. Pure totalitarianism, with a hint of badly thought-up economic theory.

yes you can, no, nothing, boo hoo them. One does not have to pay the companies to nationalizes them.

Anyway as for pharmaceutical companies, there has recently been an out-break of super-gonorrhea in Leeds (Leeds is a former industrial town in the scary, crime ridden north of England btw) which has broken out because no new antibiotics have been made in decades. The reason for that is pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to make them as they are A) Expensive B)promise limited returns. Thus the entire world is facing a crisis of super bugs which we cannot kill because the big private pharma companies are unwilling to spend money to research and produce. This means millions of people's lives are being put at risk by these supposedly benign and cuddly private conglomerates who refuse to make new antibiotics because they may damage profits.

[Vassenor]

I hate to break it to you darling, but Hayek was wrong.

Unless you think Britain in 1946 was a totalitarian country when it passed this type of law.

Property is already subject to compulsory purchase in the United Kingdom. With due compensation the Crown may take anyone's land if it wishes.

Which is wrong, and should be changed so it only works if in a state of emergency, such as an essential building project.
And Britain, in 1946, was leaning towards restricting freedoms in a way it had just fought. And we saw the results in the 1970s, didn't we?

I am not sure how you equate "nationalising industries" with "totalitarianism" or "restricting freedom".

[Questers]

Which was worse—the winter of discontent, or the global banking crisis?

[Philjia]

You can't just take these sectors away from the companies. Would you pay them? How much? What if they refuse?
Totalitarianism, is what it is. Pure totalitarianism, with a hint of badly thought-up economic theory.

yes you can, no, nothing, boo hoo them. One does not have to pay the companies to nationalizes them.

Anyway as for pharmaceutical companies, there has recently been an out-break of super-gonorrhea in Leeds (Leeds is a former industrial town in the scary, crime ridden north of England btw) which has broken out because no new antibiotics have been made in decades. The reason for that is pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to make them as they are A) Expensive B)promise limited returns. Thus the entire world is facing a crisis of super bugs which we cannot kill because the big private pharma companies are unwilling to spend money to research and produce. This means millions of people's lives are being put at risk by these supposedly benign and cuddly private conglomerates.

Big Pharma is hideously unregulated and unethical. http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_w ... _prescribe

[Questers]

Legally Parliament can make any law it wants to make.

In practical terms we do need to pay some level of compensation. And in reality we'd probably take lots of liabilities as well.

[Lamadia]

You can't just take these sectors away from the companies. Would you pay them? How much? What if they refuse?
Totalitarianism, is what it is. Pure totalitarianism, with a hint of badly thought-up economic theory.

yes you can, no, nothing, boo hoo them. One does not have to pay the companies to nationalizes them.

Anyway as for pharmaceutical companies, there has recently been an out-break of super-gonorrhea in Leeds (Leeds is a former industrial town in the scary, crime ridden north of England btw) which has broken out because no new antibiotics have been made in decades. The reason for that is pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to make them as they are A) Expensive B)promise limited returns. Thus the entire world is facing a crisis of super bugs which we cannot kill because the big private pharma companies are unwilling to spend money to research and produce. This means millions of people's lives are being put at risk by these supposedly benign and cuddly private conglomerates.

Which is why the Government should regulate, for instance, how many antibiotics are prescribed by doctors (to stop a 'Superbug',) and should offer incentives financially to find cures for diseases. This is not interfering, it is being a customer. In places like New York City (NYC is a city in the United States, by the way, which is quite important globally,) big companies, big investors, big banks, are thrust together with customers, with sophisticated infrastructure, and so on; this is a free, and globalised, market. If our Government in Britain (Britain is England, Scotland & Wales, with, alongside with N. Ireland, makes the United Kingdom, an island-nation in north-western Europe,) begins interfering with these major companies, which are often owned wholly or in part by wealthy foreigners, then we will make Britain a very unattractive place to trade, will destroy our industries in finance & property (the latter relies heavily on foreign investment, especially in London, which is our capital city,) and cripple the economy, just to lower train ticket prices?
In the 1940s & '50s, the nationalisation of industries, done by popular demand, seemed such a good idea. In 1979, we were the laughing stock of Europe, with failing, over subsidised industries bogging the country down with huge taxes which made investment impossible. In 1990, we were one of the world's biggest economies- a country of investors, as it were- it is different to a company, however an economy prospers under investment. Through the use of loop, it is easy to describe how investment into a business makes it expand, makes it provide jobs, makes it pay taxes, which makes the economy seem more attractive & thus bring investment in. This can only be kick-started by as few regulations as possible, and as low-a taxes as we can manage.

[Valaran]

In 1990, we were one of the world's biggest economies- a country of investors, as it were- it is different to a company, however an economy prospers under investment.

Actually, in 1990, Italy had a larger GDP than us, as did France, while both Canada and Spain had over half of our GDP. We weren't that big compared to other economies then..

[Allet Klar Chefs]

In the 1940s & '50s, the nationalisation of industries, done by popular demand, seemed such a good idea. In 1979, we were the laughing stock of Europe, with failing, over subsidised industries bogging the country down with huge taxes which made investment impossible.

There were a whole bunch of reasons for the UK's economic decline, but I think that nationalisation wasn't that significant. At the end of the day, it was the Conservatives deliberately running nationalised industries into the ground in the 1980s and then selling them off when they were 'beaten' that put paid to most of the idea.

[Philjia]

In 1990, we were one of the world's biggest economies- a country of investors, as it were- it is different to a company, however an economy prospers under investment.

Actually, in 1990, Italy had a larger GDP than us, as did France, while both Canada and Spain had over half of our GDP. We weren't that big compared to other economies then..

And then the economy crashed.

[Questers]

In 1971, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 1979, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 1991, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 1999, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 2008, Britain had the second largest GDP in Europe.

[Lamadia]

In 1990, we were one of the world's biggest economies- a country of investors, as it were- it is different to a company, however an economy prospers under investment.

Actually, in 1990, Italy had a larger GDP than us, as did France, while both Canada and Spain had over half of our GDP. We weren't that big compared to other economies then..

Regardless, we were a damn-sight better than in 1979.
In 1987, our GDP was over $800 billion- ten years prior, it was just over $200 billion.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 1273,d.ZGg
Investment rose massively in the period between. There is a trend between the amount/worth of investment & the national GDP- that is a fact. Likewise, there is a trend between the tax rates on corporations & individuals between this time, the amount of investment, and the national GDP.

[Valaran]

Regardless, we were a damn-sight better than in 1979.

Wasn't arguing otherwise. In the same way that we were a damn-sight better in 2000-2004 than in 1990.

[Philjia]

Actually, in 1990, Italy had a larger GDP than us, as did France, while both Canada and Spain had over half of our GDP. We weren't that big compared to other economies then..

Regardless, we were a damn-sight better than in 1979.
In 1987, our GDP was over $800 billion- ten years prior, it was just over $200 billion.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 1273,d.ZGg
Investment rose massively in the period between. There is a trend between the amount/worth of investment & the national GDP- that is a fact. Likewise, there is a trend between the tax rates on corporations & individuals between this time, the amount of investment, and the national GDP.

And then in 1992 the economy crashed.

[Valaran]

In 1971, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 1979, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 1991, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 1999, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 2008, Britain had the second largest GDP in Europe.

Supposedly, we might have the largest economy in Europe by 2030 (though iirc it somehow assumes we won't have a recession before then, and its flawed like all these long term predictions are). One can hope.

Actually, in 1990, Italy had a larger GDP than us, as did France, while both Canada and Spain had over half of our GDP. We weren't that big compared to other economies then..

And then the economy crashed.

Good times for all!

[Philjia]

In 1971, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 1979, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 1991, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 1999, Britain had the third largest GDP in Europe.

In 2008, Britain had the second largest GDP in Europe.

Supposedly, we might have the largest economy in Europe by 2030 (though iirc it somehow assumes we won't have a recession before then, and its flawed like all these long term predictions are). One can hope.

Also hasn't taken into account a possible Brexit and the fact that at the moment growth is near 0%.

[Questers]

Uh.

I am using Maddison's world GPD numbers in 1990 Gheary-Khamis dollars.

UK GDP 1977: $695,699 million
UK GDP 1987: $877,143 million

Indexed:

UK GDP 1977: 100
UK GDP 1987: 126

UK GDP 1967: $695,699 million
UK GDP 1977: $552,277 million

Indexed...

UK GDP 1967: 100
UK GDP 1977: 125.9

[Lamadia]

Regardless, we were a damn-sight better than in 1979.

Wasn't arguing otherwise. In the same way that we were a damn-sight better in 2000-2004 than in 1990.

Oh, I know, yes. Well, more proof; investment kept increasing despite market slips.
In the 1990s & early 2000ds, my father made money with subprime mortages, and other big commodities. It was a very good business, and, regardless of over-regulation which caused a false sense of security in The City, we still reap some of the financial benefits of the boom-time. A big mistake was the bailouts.

[Valaran]

Also hasn't taken into account a possible Brexit and the fact that at the moment growth is near 0%.

Brexit is too hard to pin down on how bad it will be.

Its a temporary stall; we'll see if it continues. And no to mention that Germany's growth is typically slower than ours.

[Questers]

The state can invest.

It already does.

edit: oops

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Uh.

I am using Maddison's world GPD numbers in 1990 Gheary-Khamis dollars.

UK GDP 1977: $695,699 million
UK GDP 1987: $877,143 million

Indexed:

UK GDP 1977: 100
UK GDP 1987: 126

UK GDP 1967: $695,699 million
UK GDP 1977: $552,277 million

Indexed...

UK GDP 1967: 100
UK GDP 1977: 125.9

Alright but is that 1967 figure before or after the 30% devaluation that year?

[Valaran]

regardless of over-regulation which caused a false sense of security in The City [...] A big mistake was the bailouts.

There wasn't much to reply until I saw this point. I can state with complete confidence that the 'light touch' system was not overegulated, but underegulated, espcially in specific areas (cf. Lord Turner), and the bailout were utterly needed (cf. Martin Wolf).

[Philjia]

my father made money with subprime mortages,

I'm all for being able to give people credit but this was one of the things that crashed the economy.

[Questers]

Uh.

I am using Maddison's world GPD numbers in 1990 Gheary-Khamis dollars.

UK GDP 1977: $695,699 million
UK GDP 1987: $877,143 million

Indexed:

UK GDP 1977: 100
UK GDP 1987: 126

UK GDP 1967: $695,699 million
UK GDP 1977: $552,277 million

Indexed...

UK GDP 1967: 100
UK GDP 1977: 125.9

Alright but is that 1967 figure before or after the 30% devaluation that year?

Its PPP, so I assume so.

[Lamadia]

my father made money with subprime mortages,

I'm all for being able to give people credit but this was one of the things that crashed the economy.

In his defence, he was not the one who bundled the packages together so carelessly and sold them. He just bought them, with no influence how they were made.