I've watched the below video from the Channel 4 News Website with
Prof. David Blanchflower:
His interview is the bottom of the mentioned Web-Page.
I haven't got my own business & not the sharp on 'the mechanics of Economics';
so if you are either or both could you please watch the mentioned Video & explain what
the Prof. is saying?
I've been very impressed with him when he was on Simon Mayo's BBC Radio 5Live Show, last year.
Yet, in this Channel 4 News Interview; I can't understand the majority what he's saying.
As we are a Digital Community, could my fellow residents in Swinging Heaven please help me understand.
Many thanks.
Basically:
So much of the current economy is dependent upon work done for the state
That would include things like road construction and alterations, the larger projects of which are managed by a central government agency. Into this would factor the contractors to do the qwork and the smaller cpmoanies providing the materials etc.
So cutting projects would lead to unemployment, which would cost both us, and hence the economy, a lot of dosh.
You could cut benefits given to those unemployed, but that makes up a small amount of the total benefits cost (most of which is the state pension).
Capital gains up to 40% is going to hurt some, but not me !
Vat up to 20%+ by 2013 is going to hurt all.....except those with nothing to spend.
A good thread, thanks.
Accepted most of what has been said. What we also need to stimulate growth is easier interface for people on benefits to get into low paid work and then reverse the trend of everything going overseas. Callcentres need to come back from countries who export more to us than we do to them and we really ought to try and re-establish a mainstream manufacturing base again.
Plim :sad:
Good point JTS, as you say, if you are single or a childless couple then there is very little for help available, but the Labour Governments policy has been based very much around getting children out of poverty, by moving more parents into work (not even going to comment on the rights and wrongs of that) and all in work benefits have been targeted on this group. However, as you say, Jobseekers or any other benefits certainly do not help anyone get rich, and their initial aim of preventing poverty is not even being achieved. But surely anything which helps people earn a wage, helps the country in the long run? Surely the additional costs of going to work, not only distributes the income/outgoings but also creates more jobs?
Irrespective of the kidn of work, we do need to get people back into work, or into their first jobs for a lot of the younger generation, but we need 'proper' jobs and if possilbe, physically make something rather than just be a country of service jobs. But then I cant help wondering if it has gone too far and if we are now too far away from a manufactuing country to ever get things back up and running.
What is the point of providing some people with work if those people are used to undercut the employment of others ?
For instance: Why put people on cleaning streets at 64 quid a week if all it means is the council end the contracts of cleaning companies and use the cheaper option ?
The example I gave of employers using the 64-quid worker just because it is cheap was real....
Providing make-work jobs is not an option it's a waste of money and time, and it's just an excuse used to show that something is being done...
Training is also another "something being done" excuse....look at the jobs merry-go-round....training people to enter data, then using them to enter data on unemployment....etc, etc, etc.
The favoured theme used to be that manufacturing didn't matter...services would provide the work...
But then the services also became "overseas-sourced"........
This country is too expensive..............to much money goes to government............ but without that money there would be much less work....does nobody else sees the major problems of that ?
You cannot reduce the wages, because that would lead to other problems......but on the current high wage/s we are unable to attract much investment...
I believe it is called an economic negative feedback loop.
Everything being done suppresses still further what should be done.
With 40 years of work behind me, and 40 years of tax and national insurance, I really need a person who has never worked telling me that I have to earn any benefit I may claim.
I'll return to a previous idea, that of the unemployed working for their benefits.
They would be working, if the jobs were there. How you can get 2.5 million (+) doing work that isn't there will be really interesting.....and if the work is there, then so should the pay...not 60 quid for 40 hours....and if the work is there, and the pay is there, then why wasn't it there before ?
There have already been problems with community payback....such as not being able to use it to tend schools/old-persons homes etc...because clever clogs who thought it out never considered that many would not pass the crb check....so when 2.5 million descend on schools to cut the playing fields they'll have to be checked as well....(those that have playing fields)
I'll repeat this: The major benefit is old-age-pension, the state one. That makes-up the lions share of the 168 billion....and cuts would have to start there, no matter what the election promises were. Either cuts or increase the age. Or both. And not by 2034, but now.
And then there is the public service pension, which costs everyone about 500 quid a year....
Nope.
Paddling up shit creek without a boat about sums the place up.
Claim as to its cost.....
the death spiral of the british pound and economy, just like those of euroland, portugal, italy, ireland, greece and spain (the pigs) will not be decided by fiscal policies of cuts, when or by how much but by far more powerful economic influences like central bank's, hedge funds and derivitives.
quantatatve easing (digital or paper printing) supposedly directed by the government over the bank of england in order for that bank to buy worthless toxic assets from other bankrupt banks was supposed to save us (the economy).
unfortunately for us, darling and brown omitted to tell us, that by increasing the money supply (q.e.), the pound would fall in value against other currencies causing inflation which is far higher than statistical data admits. also, that the new money (q.e.) would not be going into circulation in the economy, just temporarily negate some of the worthless crap in british banks, therefore maintaining their solvency.
our elected representatives at that time also did'nt tell us, that while the BANK OF ENGLAND would print 200 billion pounds out of thin air, it was a loan to the treasury (tax payer) AT FUCKING INTEREST that the present and future tax payers (children and grand children) would have to pay back at fucking interest and forfiet services.
it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever the outcome of the general election, majority government, minority goverment or coalition, condems, liblab or party majority. THE SAME FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY WILL BE CARRIED OUT and the purpose of the electoral chirade is to maintain the myth that the population has a say in what goes on (democracy).
Not all are unfunded ?
My partner works at an ex-nhs department (now private)..
Her previous nhs pension was "frozen" at take-over and she started a private pension with the company (had to)...her personal contributions went up from 4.5% (nhs) to % minimum (private) for a lower pot at the end of time...
The fact is that the vast majority of psp are unfunded, even when the person makes a personal contribution the money gained goes towards paying those already retired.
When the public services were half the size they are now the cost was fairly small.
Of course, as I stated above (sort-of) a lot of public service is now being moved to private companies...but the pension they had when they were employed by the state directly still has to be paid eventually.
No matter what your personal slant on the subject is, that pension is now a financial mountain that has to be paid...by an ailing economy that is based on paper. By us really.
sorry im still a bit green here
are we now saying that the link does in fact work butis not valid as it was written by the wrong kind of news paper :doh:
do you have any opposite arguments by the correct type of news papers ?? to back your statements
as an unsure observer (scuse the paper pun )id like to see both sides and make my own opinion now
The pension is unfunded, because the personal contributions are not invested to generate funds but used to pay those already retired.