Corbynomics: A Dystopia

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

clearly it does



services probably don't as if you have twice as many people you need twice as many teachers or doctors. But industries with large fixed costs like rail and power do

fascinating

so per capital gdp is directly related to population

all resources are infinite

Generali

Interesting that these management and population changes happened to come along later for gas and electric suppliers than for telecoms ones.

I would strongly suggest that you don't vote for an economic vandal like Mr Corbyn but there are none so blind as will not see.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

fascinating

so per capital gdp is directly related to population

all resources are infinite

Pretty much yeh

Globalisation is a way to try and get the benefit of a bigger population without having to have a billion immigrants move in next door. Of course it works better fkr some industries (film music sport ipods) than for others (train companies)

cells

Generali wrote: »

Interesting that these management and population changes happened to come along later for gas and electric suppliers than for telecoms ones.

I would strongly suggest that you don't vote for an economic vandal like Mr Corbyn but there are none so blind as will not see.

Can you explain what you mean by the telco vs gas and electric ?

You got me wrong generali I didn't say corybn would do a better jobs of it nor do I want anything naionised however its clear that a lot of the productivity improvements had less to do with the ownership structure for things like rail or power and more to do with other factors. Steel and coal were two terribly inefficient sectors but I don't think they would be as bad today if renationalised. Also there isn't a need to nationalise anything if you think a sector is a natural monopoly you can regulate it or encourage competitors to get into the market

so overall I think there is no advantage to nationalising industry and possibly a small disadvantage. So we are only arguing over the scale of the disadvantage.

BTW if we were a poor country i would argue the opposite the state would and should play a big part in industry and construction.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

so per capital gdp is directly related to population

For a lot of things yes. Medicine technology film music science art software indistey etc all benefit.

Clapton wrote:

all resources are infinite?

Technically yes. We just need to find them or make them

virtually everything is recyclable. Fossil fuels may be limited but the earth is making more and we have access to infinite amounts of fission and a big fusion reactor in the sky

Generali

Next bonkers plan from our Hero in a Vest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11844594/Jeremy-Corbyn-Let-taxpayers-opt-out-of-funding-the-Army.html

During a House of Commons debate in 1999, the Islington North MP proposed letting people opt out of giving tax revenue to the Army.

“What policy is adopted by his Department in respect of taxpayers who do not wish to pay certain elements of taxation on grounds of conscience,” he asked Treasury ministers on June 24.

Mr Corby continued: “British taxpayers have a right of conscience not to participate in the armed forces in time of conscription and should have a similar right in time of peace to ensure that part of their tax goes to peace, not war.”

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you describe 10-15 more years of tory government as 'interesting ' times?

Good point but I don't necessarily think the future is that set in stone. Younger people's views are starting to have more of an impact on politics. Then we have the Eu referendum, then who will replace Cameron? Many in the Labour Party are saying Corbyn will be leader for a couple of years and will then stand down giving a new leader a clear run against whoever replaces Cameron?

Moby

Generali wrote: »

Next bonkers plan from our Hero in a Vest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11844594/Jeremy-Corbyn-Let-taxpayers-opt-out-of-funding-the-Army.html

He will be a Torygraph/Daily Mail/Sun readers wet dream:eek:

I'm sure there are a whole stack of stories waiting for their chance. I'll say this though he is highly respected as an MP with an expense claim right at the bottom of the Torygraphs list of shame.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

He will be a Torygraph/Daily Mail/Sun readers wet dream:eek:

I'm sure there are a whole stack of stories waiting for their chance. I'll say this though he is highly respected as an MP with an expense claim right at the bottom of the Torygraphs list of shame.

He's a car crash waiting to happen. AFAICS, if we take the not unreasonable view that Mr Corbyn is an unelectable nutter, then who can serve in his cabinet? Collective responsibility means that the Cabinet must speak with one voice but it'll destroy the career of anyone who serves.

The other really big problem that Mr Corbyn faces is that IIRC, the only thing that he has ever run is a planning committee. Leading the Labour Party is several orders of magnitude tougher as a job I suspect. !

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Pretty much yeh

Globalisation is a way to try and get the benefit of a bigger population without having to have a billion immigrants move in next door. Of course it works better fkr some industries (film music sport ipods) than for others (train companies)

clearly the facts disagree