So the Tories didn't "snuff out" the recovery in 2010

Mistermeaner

Its not austerity; its moving from spending way way way too much to just spending way way too much

Its sensible is what it is and long should it continue

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

how short is the short term?

Difficult to say but the closure is goining to cost tax payer and local businesses a lot.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Difficult to say but the closure is goining to cost tax payer and local businesses a lot.

not closing failing businesses will turn the whole country into a third world doss hole

Mistermeaner

oh carper; you need to get yourself some grounding in basic economics. Using public money to prop up unprofitable private industry is the road to ruin. There is not a bottomless pit of money and spending on one thing deprives you of the ability to spend on another - if you chose to subsidise an unprofitable industry it means you have less money to spend on something which is perhaps of greater value to society, like profitable industry or doctors, or education.

Plus subsidising unprofitable things causes stagnation as noone has an incentive to change and flex to the global market - those redundant steelworkers could be working in a profitable car plant in 6 months time - if you continued to subsidise them they wont.

Your approach would bankrupt the country

ukcarper

Mistermeaner wrote: »

oh carper; you need to get yourself some grounding in basic economics. Using public money to prop up unprofitable private industry is the road to ruin. There is not a bottomless pit of money and spending on one thing deprives you of the ability to spend on another - if you chose to subsidise an unprofitable industry it means you have less money to spend on something which is perhaps of greater value to society, like profitable industry or doctors, or education.

Plus subsidising unprofitable things causes stagnation as noone has an incentive to change and flex to the global market - those redundant steelworkers could be working in a profitable car plant in 6 months time - if you continued to subsidise them they wont.

Your approach would bankrupt the country

Did I say prop it up indefinitely but to cover a period of low demand is a different thing. I would also say that subsidising businesses with tax credits housing benefit is also not the way forward.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Did I say prop it up indefinitely but to cover a period of low demand is a different thing. I would also say that subsidising businesses with tax credits housing benefit is also not the way forward.

businesses aren't subsidised by tax credits and housing benefits : people are.
but I agree that they with you that they should be cut drastically.

Mistermeaner

ukcarper wrote: »

Did I say prop it up indefinitely but to cover a period of low demand is a different thing. I would also say that subsidising businesses with tax credits housing benefit is also not the way forward.

even offering temporary relief is wrong as it would incentivise business not to structure themselves / save cash for economic cycles

agere with you on tax credits and housing benefits but that is something else - it doesn't subsidise business it subsidises people and should also IMO be cut

ukcarper

Mistermeaner wrote: »

even offering temporary relief is wrong as it would incentivise business not to structure themselves / save cash for economic cycles

agere with you on tax credits and housing benefits but that is something else - it doesn't subsidise business it subsidises people and should also IMO be cut

They might not directly subsidise business but they do indirectly.

Mistermeaner

no they don't -

If tax credits were cut to zero tomorrow businesses would not start suddenly paying people more.

Some people would have less money to spend on stuff, but as with any balance sheet it means there is either more money to spend on something else (e.g NHS) or other people are being taxed less and therefore they spend more, or of they don;t spend they save which gives banks more liquidity and therefore more money to lend.

Fella

michaels wrote: »

There are all sorts of arguements against but to be fair we did effectively use huge temporary subsidies to keep the banks open when they were illiquid.....

A closer analogy is probably the "cash for clunkers" scheme.