37 Ways to Reform the Economy So It’s Not Rigged for the Rich

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

but I'm sure it's the same as Corbynomics in the UK....

No it isn't, there isn't one mention of (a) QE of any kind, or (b) nationalising anything.

Either (a) you didn't read the report, or (b) don't understand anything about economics. Or quite possibly both.:)

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

Probably not, but it's this government policy to generate a sweatshop economy, we are working more for less as shown in the low productivity figures.

Sorry to burst your bubble. We are producing less yet paying ourselves more. Which means the UK is even less competitive. More so for sweatshop jobs. The average French worker produces in 4 days what takes the UK worker 5 days.

I would add the caveat that companies such as Nissan are an exception.

cells

In the UK our GDP (and hence GDP per capita and productivity per capita) is massively influenced by our inability to allow house building. If the UK allowed build rates to go up by 250,000 a year towards french type levels then the UK would see its GDP jump by at least £60 billion and then maybe the same again indirectly

also any comparison to any other nation is not easy as the biggest determining factor is the value of the currency and not how fast a worker outputs a widget

Mistermeaner

I got bored after 15 which all seemed the same to me

Is it worth reading the other 20odd?

antrobus

cells wrote: »

In the UK our GDP (and hence GDP per capita and productivity per capita) is massively influenced by our inability to allow house building. If the UK allowed build rates to go up by 250,000 a year towards french type levels then the UK would see its GDP jump by at least £60 billion and then maybe the same again indirectly....

£60 billion divided by 250,000 is £240k, which is a lot. GDP is not calculated on sale price, it's calculated on value added.

Besides, ouput per hour worked was £96.60 in construction in 2014, but for the whole economy it was £98.70. Thus expanding house building is more likely to reduce productivity rather than increase it.

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

Number 16 has to be the funniest.

It's very funny when you realise that one person thinks that's 'Corbynomics'.:)

cells

antrobus wrote: »

£60 billion divided by 250,000 is £240k, which is a lot.

over a year ago barratt homes annual report said average sale price of their new builds were £220k it must be higher now. plus in a more free market i suspect the builders would target more expensive areas and would target the more expensive types of properties (larger homes rather than flats)

right now the market is quota driven so houses are built where the quotas allow them to be built. Eg Telford council allows and sees a high build rate (about 3x the national average) even though its one of the cheapest areas in the country

antrobus wrote: »

GDP is not calculated on sale price, it's calculated on value added.

Yes i know. however surely the value added in turning muck into bricks and into homes is pretty much the sale price. You could try to break it down. £30B in building homes, £15B in manufacturing the materials, £1B in transporting it all,..etc etc. You could try to argue things like grid/gas/water connection or finance costs isnt "house building" but clearly its being enabled by the extra building

antrobus wrote: »

Besides, ouput per hour worked was £96.60 in construction in 2014, but for the whole economy it was £98.70. Thus expanding house building is more likely to reduce productivity rather than increase it.

sectors interact with each other and dont operate in isolation. Employing a million more people and generating £60B more of value added a year is going to increase the GDP/capita markedly of the country which is a more important metric than pounds per hour worked.

it will also improve the productivity of the other sectors as a million more people are employed and can spend more money in the local restaurant or buy a bigger better car or spend more of their money on higher priced higher value added goods and services etc

also the taxes generated in all this activity could be used to cut overall taxes (just for arguments sake lets say cut corporation tax) which would increase the productivity of all the corporates in the land no matter what industry they were in

antrobus

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I got bored after 15 which all seemed the same to me

Is it worth reading the other 20odd?

Not really.

But then, the first 15 aren't really that interesting either. Mainly because a good deal of it is simply either not applicable or not relevant to the UK.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

well yes you can break it down to +£30B in building the homes, +5B in making the bricks, +1B in making the fixtures and fittings +1B in advertising and sales etc etc but the whole bottom to top will be in the +£60B range




sectors interact with each other and dont operate in isolation.


Employing a million more people and generating £60B more of value added a year is going to increase the GDP/capita markedly of the country which is a more important metric than pounds per hour worked. it will also improve the productivity of the other sectors as a million more people are employed and can spend more money in the local restaurant or buy a bigger better car or spend more of their money on higher priced higher value added goods and services etc. also the taxes generated in all this activity could be used to cut overall taxes (just for arguments sake lets say cut corporation tax) which would increase the productivity of all the corporates in the land no matter what industry they were in

You could say the same thing about spending £60 bn on anything.

cells

antrobus wrote: »

You could say the same thing about spending £60 bn on anything.

read my edited version.

and yes if there is a sector that is being held back due to rules or regulations and those rules or regs are abolished it will result in more activity resulting in more jobs more taxes and higher productivity.

Think of car production. If the UK had a quota that was half of what was true demand. If the quota was abolished and production doubled clearly more people would be employed more taxes would be paid and things would generally be better for everyone

or even think of it the opposite way. think of viable profitable businesses today. If rules or regs or quotas were introduced resulting in half the businesses going bankrupt what would that do to GDP or productivity? say for instance the uk put into place regs that made it impossible to build aircraft parts in the UK and all those businesses went bust. or lets say to film anything you had to apply for a film permit that took a year to approve and most the time it was refused and you could only film with ten government inspectors looking on...clearly those regs would fek up that industry and we would all be worse off for it.