Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The opposite is true - we cannot afford the luxury of ignoring the financial facts and the lessons of the past. By the way, this is not Thatcherism, it goes back long before her.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
even before thatcher a red government refused to give a small subsidy to shipbuilders in the north east, the orders went to poland who had no qualms about monetary help.
destroyed whole communities and they never recovered.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Poland was a Communist country then so it was all state subsidised anyway Howard. Actually Howard - the Labour government did subsidise some ships to be built on behalf of Poland, built with British steel that was further subsidised and using subsidised coal to make..... Those ships that were virtually paid for by the British taxpayer went on and competed against the British merchant navy, winning business. Just one of the many factors that help run down our merchant fleet.
Subsidies create more problems than they solve.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
Still waiting for answer to my #77 Question?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - You really do have a damned cheek thinking I should answer every question you put. The answer is in the answers already given. The Germans can make the same mistake as we made in the 70's that's up to them.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
sadly garyc no matter how many times you ask and try to give level header postings barryw has only 1 vision
so please thats how it is
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Pot, kettle, black.......
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
peter;
i don't wish to get heavily involved in your petty stuff
or need to defend myself
i do not have tunnel vision
and sway from left to right in my beliefs
wont go any further as the posting heading is far more important
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Merely pointing out your own tendency to dodge questions or to reply with platitudes, Keith. Criticising others for similar behaviour is a little rich.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
Thats fine, it was a genuine question.
If you had read that post properly, you would have seen that I was agreeing with you on the whole but I thought you might have different view on the Germans backing their own companies.
As you refuse to answer(twice) then obviously, you must be happy for Bombardiers to go to the wall.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - I wished them every success if you read a previous post I just said that subsidies should not be considered, success based on subsidy is a mirage and unsustainable.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
wonder of the benefits o keeping these geezers employed
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
despite the political dogma of the free market every other country in the developed world makes sure tht the multi billion pound contracts are awarded to their own.
the political shade of government makes no difference.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
At the end of the day you cannot subsidise every business that might go broke. Subsidy is debilitating the business in so many ways. Why should business managers run it effectively and efficiently if they think they can get a government bail-out if they get into trouble? Why should the employees behave sensibly if they think that irresponsible strike action will result in a bail-out of their employer if they drive it to bankruptcy? Why should directors or other investors risk their money if they think they can get the government to take the risk? Why should larger businesses that get into trouble be favoured over the many smaller businesses that do so?
Where do you draw the line? Who do you say no to and who do you say yes to? Sometime it has to stop - what then? It is a treadmill that we must never get back onto.
Believe it or not, change is healthy in an economy and business failures are a part of that change. The alternative is to stifle enterprise and innovation and to smother businesses, 'freezing them in time' as they fail to keep up with the world and get out of date.
This is what happened in the 70's - massive subsidies given to failing business that effectively enabled irresponsible industrial action, preserved restrictive practises, stifled new product development and risk taking. Over a couple of decades our businesses fell behind competitors in Germany and elsewhere losing business and when the drug of subsidy eventually had to be turned off many could not survive, it was too late for them. Need I mention British Leyland....a classic example of the evils of subsidy.
Subsidy has to end sometime. Cold turkey is more painful that the natural processes of business growth, merger and sometimes decline.
It is a tough world and businesses have to be tough and sharp to survive. Subsidies get in the way of all that. For those that will bleat on about, 'what about people? - that is exactly why businesses have to be left free to prosper, win orders or fail. The alternative is ultimately worse for people.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
we are back barry to say then if the figure gets to 5 million unemployed because business is failing
to you thats a price worth paying??
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith - you do not solve employment problems by subsidy - specially when it is all on borrowed money that has to be paid back and while we are already building up more and more debt daily due to a deficit.
The way to do it is to encourage business, reduce their tax burden, improve incentives, get rid of daft red tape and in so doing reduce business costs making them more competitive and enable them to win orders. You also need to encourage more employment by reducing disincentives to employ people, like making it easier and cheaper to sack people. That is the only way to solve unemployment problems.
Subsidy just creates a hidden pool of unemployment that eventually 'shakes out' into the system anyway and is worse that otherwise because the businesses will have lost their competitive edge and will no longer have a future. I repeat British Leyland....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw
don't get me wrong, every workforce/company should be able to get rid of dead wood but your view to make it easy to sack people only gives an open door to employers to victimise some for whatever reason.
iv always said there needs to be a better way where employers/employees can work together for the better of there industries/companies
there is a role for trade unions and we need to recognise that.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
meanwhile more of our infrastructure falls into foreign ownership.
more major contracts go abroad.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW
This thread is about giving a contract to Bombardier, a British firm that can deliver the goods, based on facts now, not back in the 70's.
A contract not a subsidy.
As I said before, the only ones to benefit out of giving this contract to Germany, is Germany.
Surely it would be better that we benefit?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
I have started a new thread on subsidies.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"