You seem to have swallowed Thatcherite economics, whole. The flaw in your argument is clear from the final sentence of your reply: social costs are not just fodder for Jeremy Kyle, there is a real economic cost when a community is condemned to death, with all that that implies.
-
-
Surely though you can argue for investment, learning fresh skills (which I know is often more difficult in practice) and even a wind down, all government paid for without keeping an industry going that never makes it out of the red.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
It all depends on what you understand by being "in the red". You could be in the red in narrow capitalist profit making terms, but at the same time be well in the black taking a wider view of human & societal welfare as a whole. The economy should be our servant, not our master.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
Sadly, unless those industries that benefit are paying enough in taxes to make up the difference though, then there isn’t going to be anything to pay those workers. If they are then it’s entirely feasible, though likely difficult to calculate.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
Govt spending is not constrained by tax take. How could it be when the govt is the monopoly issuer of the currency? What matters is the effect of the spending on the economy, which brings us back to the social and economic costs of unemployment, knock on effects, health, etc.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
Certainly not in the short term, but if they intend to borrow to pay for it, there’s only two ways out (that I know of): growth or inflation. The latter is obviously preferable, but not always guaranteed. Again, if one can get growth then it makes sense, but otherwise it doesn’t.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
Govt borrowing to fund deficits is a convention, not a necessity. Money can be created, & the effect is largely the same. In any case, surely spending to keep people employed and producing is better than spending on social security, social problems, mental health & prisons, etc?
1 antwoord 0 retweets 1 vind-ik-leuk -
But when money is created then you have inflation, which causes all its own problems. And again, potentially it’s better, potentially it isn’t depending on the limitations of the two methods. Anyway, I’m turning in so goodnight. I’ve enjoyed this conversation.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
No, it all depends on how the money is spent, and whether the economy has the capacity to react to the spending by increasing output. Inflation is more money chasing static output. It's nothing to do with whether it's borrowed or created. I hope we can pick this up tomorrow.
2 antwoorden 0 retweets 1 vind-ik-leuk -
Als antwoord op @DarrellChaloner @APDBullock en
And back, specifically, to British Steel: closure would certainly benefit global investors who will profit from the transfer of steel making places with lower labour costs and inferior environmental standards. Workers and the environment be damned, of course. It's a class issue.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 1 vind-ik-leuk
UK makes about 10m tonnes raw iron a year. China makes 700m tonnes. Would make zero difference globally.
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.