UKC

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/general-election-labour-ec...

They are the only game in town and a fantastic opportunity for this country. 

I don't know exactly how many economists there are in the UK but I doubt 160 represents a very high percentage. This is a meaningless statement so I'm not even going to read the article.

Were they the ones who backed Brown with his no more boom or bust?

Interesting, I've had a quick swatch on Google for 160 economists backing Brown's boom and bust comments but I can't find any so feel free to back up your statement as proof.

There are 1,500 economists working in the UK and even more academics however the 160 that tell us we need to vote Labour are prominent economists and academics.

The group, which includes professor David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, and Victoria Chick, emeritus professor of economics at University College London, savaged the record of the Conservative and coalition governments.

hahahahah.

Bless. 

You believe them

Didn't these same economists say we would plunge into a recession the moment we invoked Article 50?

As far as I can tell, Economists are very much like Weathermen.

If you can show me that they did then that would make it true but if you can't then that would make your statement false. So until you can back up your statement then it is just a statement of opinion not fact. 

Or told him to sell gold. 

Former employees of the Venezuelan president? 

160 economists? By at least one basic law of economics that is 186 opinions.

Oh dear you Tories are rather triggered into child like trolling when faced with uncomfortable truths aren't you? 

No its 160 prominent economists saying one thing -

We need to vote Labour on the 12th of December. 

Opinions that you agree with aren't necessarily facts.

I didn't make a statement. I asked a question and then gave my opinion. Take it as you will... 

Not a Tory. But I can still disagree with your view. 

The isf didn't share their view on Labour's manifesto. 

But that defies practically every political comment you make on here so please forgive my scepticism but I find that extremely hard to believe for that reason, sorry. 

So show me where they all agreed with Brown. 

Just because someone thinks Corbyn is a Muppet, doesn't mean they think Boris is the messiah. This forum is full of people who'd be tempted to vote Labour if it wasn't for Corbyn. For every loyal corbynista, there are arguably two more who'd vote for Labour if it was him in charge (using charge in the loosest sense). 

Economists serious about their calculations and expecting those to be taken equally seriously don't write open letters mid-election exhorting the public to vote in a manner unsurprisingly co-incident with their own politics. Instead, like the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they express their view on, for example, Labour's manifesto and leave the journalists and politicos to make of their findings what they will.

I see on my social media that the fact that the FT covered this story has been blown up into "a full endorsement of Labour's manifesto by the FT" when in fact the FT editorial team has criticised the manifesto as a naive and incompetent waste of an opportunity to reset the economy. Indeed, not far from the IFS's view.

Thanks, I'm referring to your constant support of Tories and nothing to do with your attacks on JC. That in combination with your constant attacks on JC shows that you in deed behave just like Tory no matter what you say you profess. 

Why do you do that? If your objective is to encourage people who might be sceptical of Labour's spending plans to look at them in more detail, then subsequently chucking your toys out of the pram and calling anyone who disagrees with you "Tories" is maybe not the best strategy.

"You don't need an economist to know which way the pound is heading."

Doesn't really scan as well as the original, does it?

I think you are confusing my dslike of Corbyn for tory support. Apart from their eu stance I agree with pretty much everything the lib dems propose. Sadly their leader isn't much better than Labour's, but if they gain some seats this time, there might be a credible lib Dem leader amongst them for the future.  

I note that you don't ask the people who reacted childishly to my OP " Why do you do that?" but reserve your question for me only. The Tories that responded are highly unlikely to change their mind, its everyone else that might, if there is any sanity left in this country. 

Mostly because you authored the thread, but yes I acknowledge that there were some childish responses.

You despair of 'sanity left in this country', but for me the despairing point is the apparent refusal to recognize that our political spectrum has many shades of grey. Not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily going to vote Tory, and not everyone who will vote Tory is doing so because they are the devil incarnate. It's this attitude, rather than an attempt to comprehend exactly why so many people are disaffected, that is pushing many people away from voting Labour. 

Nonono.. I'm pretty sure it's a lack of hard left policies. JC and co seem to think so, anyway. Every time they get nervous about the election result they crank out yet another policy designed to appeal to the exact same demographic, who were already going to vote for them anyway.

Still, at least we know where they're planning to find 20 billion magic money trees now.

Yes only after I called you out for it and not before. 

" apparent refusal to recognize that our political spectrum has many shades of grey." 

" Not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily going to vote Tory".

" and not everyone who will vote Tory is doing so because they are the devil incarnate"

That's 3 straw men you have built straight away do you want to carry on for a full team?

Or you could just scream anti-semite ffs like you did earlier. 

I heard a rumour they'll replace everyone's gas boiler with an air sourced heat pump for free....

Or a £10k trade in for your old diesel car..

The catch is they'll say by 2040, so never actually deliver on their promise. 

You Tories are funny, now trying to make out Labour are liars unlike your Tory liar-in-chief of the party-of-lies. 

The irony of 

The irony of your post has not escaped me. 

Show me where I do that. 

Or are just engaging in some yourself? 

“You Tories are funny, now trying to make out Labour are liars unlike your Tory liar-in-chief of the party-of-lies.”

So what would you do if 170 economists wrote a letter saying that the Labour spending plans were irresponsible and extravagant? Would you change your mind?

I think you may have lost the plot

I never said that they agreed with anyone.  I merely suggested that the fact that you agree with their opinion does not make it a fact.

It was an ironic post. There are a huge range of opinions amongst economists, 160 supporting one side of an economic argument does not mean it is right.

I wonder if Boris could find 160 economists to endorse him now that he's apparently embracing protectionism. Probably...

Interesting piece here that argues that the ISF agrees with the broad principles of Labour's approach at least; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/28/ifs-manifesto-labour-...

You miss an important point. The IFS have always talked about how much any govt needs to spend to cover issues such as social care and so on . Think the figure is about an extra £40 billion a year. They have then analysed where the tax revenue to do this should come from and the best way of doing it. The conclusion was whack up Vat to 28%.

the IFS have also said there is nothing g wrong with Labours plans. Just that tax increase on the top 5 % and raising corporation tax does not generate the tax revenue to be able to do them. 

Therein lies the crucial issue. 

A fantastic opportunity for what exactly?

Aye, I got that but like I said I thought it was an interesting piece.

But that is just the truth, no trolling. 

But the reply was about someone saying it was the same economists who said something about A50 and me saying until you show proof of that then it has no validity. 

So it is you who is getting a bit muddled I'm afraid. 

What would you do if I told you brexit has been cancelled?

It doesn't matter as 160 prominent economists are not telling us to vote Tory but they are telling us to vote Labour. 

The letter by the prominent economists is here and a full list of their positions to. 

It makes very interesting reading from the environment policies of a Labour Green revolution to the economy. It must be read to be appreciated. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-deserve-form-next-government-...

'a fantastic opportunity for this country'.

If this country is Timbuktu. They may be economists second but they are communists first.

Normalising corporation tax with other countries is not unreasonable

However relying on corporation tax £30bn of the 83bn is not guaranteed because corporation tax is a tax on profits rather than for example turnover.  If business's profits are reduced or replaced by losses (for example as a result of Brexit!) then the benefit will be a lot less than £30bn

We appear to have a new troll in town. Welcome.

I'm a troll? By that you must mean UkClimbing a leftwing website for lefty liberals only. News to me John. 

So your comment about those economists being communists is actually for real? Seriously?

Partaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!!!!!

Yeah, for real, seriously.

In which case I think you can be safely dismissed.

Yep. Very childish. 

It looks like a very respectable list of academics/experts. It wouldn't surprise me if none of them are communists. Or at the very most, one or two.

That’s probably true. However, the vast majority of them happen to be employed by a state that they criticise for a lack of generosity. Or, to put it differently. Academic votes Labour shock!

I think that is a rather lame response to their case. As an academic discipline economics is not known for its left leanings. The most prominent signatory to the letter is probably David ‘Danny’ Blanchflower (based in the US, although he does have a  small part time position at Stirling Uni) and he can’t stand Corbyn. 

Economics is having a “leftie” phase at the moment, what with MMT and UBI. And increasing government spending and widening deficits is a fashionable credo today. Fiscal stimulus is enjoying much discussion across Europe and beyond. But the Labour manifesto has taken it from a defensible shift in direction to an all out war on capitalism and common sense.

The FT, no friends of the Tories nowadays, captured the frustration when they wrote that Labour had very accurately identified the problems besetting society yet singularly failed to produce workable solutions in a bid to produce a full ideological overthrow of 50 years of progress and rising prosperity.

The question would be if Corbyn gained power would any of them benefit in their given sector.

It's no different from your stereotypical city bank ceo saying he thinks tory policy is better for the UK. 

There is very little that is truly impartial these days. 

Ok, and yet 160 economists of a social democratic bent - absolutely not anti-capitalism - disagree.

Just a bit of geography for you Paul: Timbuktu is a city in Mali. Mali is a country. Timbuktu is a town.

HTH.

Stick with your bigoted preconceptions its probably safest

Preconceptions about what? The abundance of economists?

I wonder how many economists think Labours spending plans are fantasy and totally undeliverable? Again I don't know how many there are but I reckon if you looked really hard you'd find more than 160. 

But it is prominent economists not just economists and 160 prominent economists say better vote Labour and I don't see a large group of prominent economists saying vote Tory. 

It's not difficult to grasp. 

So vote Labour and tell everyone else to and you will get a chance to party. 

Not where I live. Lib Dem have an outside chance but Labour? Not a hope.

To be fair Toby, Paul is struggling with the geography of his arse and his elbow, so the geography of West Africa is going to be a stretch.

Economists represent only themselves. You can safely ignore all of them (except, and with a large pinch of salt, the very few that have stood the test of time, Smith, Schumpeter, Keynes...)

To be fair that not what they have said.

No, no, no, weathermen are much better. In facts humans in general are much better than economists.

Absolutely, but that is because the game has changed. It's difficult to do much with monetary policy when there are no interest rates to cut. Fiscal stimulus is, whether we like it or not, pretty much the only game in town right now.

Well, either fiscal stimulus or crippling austerity...

The game has not really changed. More that some people are just fed up and do not recognise you have to maintain things in the long haul and that nudges and minor changes for a mature economy are the way forward. 

IFS aren’t really economist they’re just essentially financial analysts, they just tell you if the sums add up or not. And it’s the same at every single election whether it’s labour or tories the fantastic promises don’t usually adds up.

To be fair it’s almost completely pointless to even do this exercise. We know the manifestos are piles of rubbish. 

I think the game has changed, or more correctly did in 2008 but everybody pretended that it didn't. So I'll say this again:

The UK economy is now operating at the effective zero lower bound. Monetary policy has no wiggle room. Fiscal policy or crippling austerity are the only remaining options until, or if, the economy returns to pre-2008 behaviour.

Or, in other words, the game has changed.

And of course you have to maintain in the long haul, that we agree upon. I personally don't think that cutting funding to public services left right and centre is the way to maintain for the long haul though.

Your comment on minor changes rings hollow, given the B word and much else going on.

What has changed is the west is now past peak growth. We can't grow ourselves out of the debt. We have to either spend less on services or make standards of living sacrifices to fund them. Less fancy food, holidays, needlessly expensive gadgets, cars and so on. 

Less NHS, less UK, less urgent green policies but increase the 4 million British people who are living in poverty and increase Dickensian food banks and no more extra taxation of the top earners and transnationals ? 

Taxing just the top 5% won't be sufficient to fund services properly. Everyone will need to pay more. 

But taxing the top earners more is necessary and a great place to start. 

Genuinely interested in why you think expenditure amounts (in percentage terms) that are comparable to Germany are "fantasy and totally unachievable"?

I'm not especially cheering for Labour here but I am confused about the performative incredulity regarding their plans. If you disagree with their economic policy, ok - but it really isn't that radical and it certainly isn't unachievable, as demonstrated in many economies around the world.

It buys votes but doesn't solve the problem. When will he tell the other 95% they must pay more too? Isn't he simply lying to the electorate? 

The guy is deluded. He said on r2 today he'd pay the waspi pension money out of 'head room'.. when challenged he said the annual surplus! Clearly not the UK surplus, as it's been nearly two decades since it had one. 

It's not the amount. It's the scale and pace of the increase that most consider impossible. 

It's incredibly easy to spend that much money, but the challenge is what you do with the economy to fund it. Any idiot can spend. 

Isn't the problem that it takes a lot of state capacity (manpower) to increase state service levels? And Labour will use most state capacity to renegotiate a brexit deal and organize another referendum and then deal with the outcome of that referendum.

I tried to follow your argument a couple of times, but gave up...

It's all very well saying X is close to Y and Y seems okay. But when you're at A trying to go all the way over to X in one leap is unrealistic. You can't shift economic systems so rapidly. If any government tried to spend that much extra money and make that sort of investment that quickly it's bound to be a disaster because there just isn't the time or skill to do any of it right. 

So you agree with the 160 experts that Labour's economic policies are needed and we should vote Labour but you just want them to go a bit slower? 

Same for you Summo. 

No. Everyone wants better health, education etc..  but saying it's for free when it isn't is a lie. Having free broadband is no good if the country is mired in 3 or 4 trillion of debt. 

It's how you get to the goal that matters, not just writing it in a manifesto.

What is this 3 or 4 trillion in debt? 

You have a problem with manifestos now? How else do you propose political parties show us what and how they want to fix the country so that we can make up our mind prior to an election? 

Basically he is saying that no matter who is in power the complexities over Brexit will dominate any govt, meaning that all the manifesto pledges are a waste of time anyway.

The issue being that those top earners can easily upstick  and move. 

Somebody like Hargreaves pays £40miillion a year on personal tax. Where does that shortfall come from if he leaves the UK??

No I think it's a horrific idea, Labours ideals are all very well (not that I share them) but socialism will lead to a crash in the economy, lower tax take,a massive debt increase and ultimately a lower standard of public services when we finally realise we can't afford this and have to face the music. But it's okay by that stage we'll have voted the Tory's back in so you can all blame them for the massive cuts which would be needed.

I'd worry more about levels of business confidence in the event of a Corbyn government. The decisions of thousands of business leaders who have been castigated as tax dodgers and workhouse owners matter every bit as much as their tax payments do. The stick doesn't work as well as the carrot, in my experience. But the stick is the only tool Corbyn wields. Investment will plummet and it won't end well for our economy.

This is dead wrong: the IFS have a very good reputation as an economic research institute, about as close as you’ll get to academic economic research outside of a university.

The global economy is more of a concern, well to me anyway.

As an SME I do think there is a case for arguing that these big corporates have been running rings round HMRC with licences etc and using Ireland, Luxembourg. Holland a bit too much. Certainly some of these utilitiy companies have been a bit fast and loose (although they have now realised its not a good idea) on their structues. In a way they have only got themselves to blame if heaven forbid Labour get in and does what it says. The writing has been on the wall for sometime on this issue, crikey I can remember a couple of years ago the editor in the Financial section of the Sunday Times saying as much.I personnally doubt- with Brexit- they will have the parliamentary time in a 1st term to enact anything anyway.Its probably why the £ is increasing in value and the stock market has not gone seriously awry prior to the election.Realistically they have fat chance of doing most of the things that are on the wish list. Now if they were then elected for a second term that might be different.

Are you sure that Corbyn will affect business confidence in quite the way you expect?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/21/bankers-corbyn-tories...

‘Yet people in unexpected places are starting to consider a Corbyn government less risky than the alternatives.’

Emphasis mine. Business is stuck in the same choice between bad options that we are. Compared to a potential hard Brexit Corbyn’s plan is the better option, but that doesn’t mean it will create confidence within the business world, it just means they hate it the least.

Once you look past the fear mongering propaganda you see that Labour is the party for 95% of business, just as it is for 95% of people, and the other 5% will also benefit from operating in a society where people are more prosperous.

Labour aim to create the conditions where businesses that are doing the right thing reap the rewards of increased investment to build a prosperous society at a time when borrowing is low. No one wants to see excessive taxation on wealth creators either, just a fair tax system that funds a society that works for all. In turn a prosperous society is also good for business.

All depend on your business   

All depends on your business.

It’s called “Institute of fiscal studies” of course they use element of economic theory but as far as I can tell they mostly produce financial models and analysis, not economic theory.

The pound rising in response to today's encouraging poll news for the Tories carries more weight than a 10 week old speculative snippet in a Labour-supporting rag.

The market is completely apolitical. It follows where the money will go. And that, as the oscillations in GBP show, is into the UK if Boris wins well, not that he deserves the plaudits he would claim in that eventuality. It's only because of some relief of uncertainty. And yes, in December 2020, that uncertainty would rear its head again, but the market hopes for that to be smoothed over.

Well, take a look at this IFS paper here:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w12994.pdf

I’ve only scanned it very briefly but to me it looks like they are making a slightly bespoke macro model and then testing it against the data. I am struggling to understand why this isn’t doing economics, as that is pretty much how the subject works: make some assumptions, pull together a theory and test the results against some data. In addition the paper (which took me about a minute to pick) was written by academic economists from UCL’s economics department.

Have you had any formal education in the subject?

This is a financial market. Am I surprised that it would go up with the prospect of a Tory government?  Funnily enough, no. Business of course means more than just the financial sector. 

Hi, can you show me some evidence for that statement? 

Yet 160 prominent economic experts who are not JC or Labour fans disagree with you. 

Are you an economics expert? 

What socialism? Since when did a few nationalisations mean the workers have taken control of all means of production? It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination as it would still be a fully capitalist mixed economy so why the gross exaggeration? To scare people? 

I think that was your Tory banker friends that were responsible for the collapse of capitalism in 2008 not the Labour Party. 

The average top rate of tax between 1932 and 1980 was 81% , and under Ted Heath’s Tory government in the 1970s the top rate was 75%, with an additional 15% investment surcharge to boot. Margaret Thatcher might have slashed the top rate, but it remained at 60% until the last two years of her reign.

Indeed, there are far more prosperous economies than our own with higher top rates of tax. In Denmark and Sweden – two of Europe’s richest economies – the top rate of tax is 60.4% and 56.4% respectively.

From - 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/15/corbyn-mcdonnell-tax-...

So all this is just scaremongering by Tory voters and some super rich billionaires. 

No, he’s not an economic “expert” he is a businessman who, unlike economic “experts”, doesn’t get paid when he get its wrong. So if I were you I would listen to what the man says.

You are Michael Gove and I collect my Daily Messenger prize.

Sweden is 62%. I suspect it's a badly researched article and the 56.4 is the median, average or similar that is paid when you look at the whole population. 

But I'd argue this isn't the critical difference. It's the near zero tax free threshold after which it's 31-33% depending where you live. So if you earn the equiv of £12k you are paying £3+k in tax. 

Despite this tax, I still pay to visit the doctors, vat is 25% etc. Etc. Why? Because that's the kind of funding needed to pay for many of Labour promises, some of which are in place in parts of Scandinavian in loosely similar forms. Taxing the richest uk 5% just won't cover their aspirations and they will mire the UK in even more debt. 

A manifesto has to stack up, not just be undeliverable aspiration. 

So far I think all parties manifestos have been destroyed. 

Get a like

Gove had a point though, we really have a fake experts problem, social scientist, psychologists,  economists etc etc usually people in academia with no skin the game.

It didn’t really apply to the context he was referring to, tough.

You’ve read Talib, of course you have. How predictable.

So tell me why the people you list are “fake experts”? I will also point out that you didn’t bother to answer my other question re the IFS - I’m assuming as fake experts who don’t deadlift (a Talib criteria right?) that they don’t count. 

No the top rate of tax in Sweden from this article by the tax foundation states that it is 56.4%. 

So as Owen points out if JCs taxation of the wealthiest goes up a bit but is still much lower than countries with a higher standard of living then why have their economies not collapsed? 

https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-s...

He is a Tory voter who doesn't answer points made to him in a debate so why would I believe him over 160 experts in all economics? 

I honestly don’t know who you are talking about.

Me, a Tory voter ? You are completely nuts.

We as someone living and paying tax in sweden I can assure you the article is wrong. 

No not you, BnB. And grow up. 

Because, for the most part, the stuff they produce doesn’t work in reality.

So the tax foundation is wrong but you are right?

Sorry but why would I believe that? 

Ahhh, the guys you’re reading have read him: that’s where the suddenly popular phrase “skin in the game” comes from. 
 

So tell me, why do those who study society have nothing to add to our knowledge of human behaviour?

You are starting to sound like Dominic Cummings when you say experts are useless. 

If that’s the case, why do governments and large companies employ such people?

There is nothing wrong about studying society. There is something really wrong pretending you can make sense of it when in fact you can’t.

In reply:

So as Owen points out if JCs taxation of the wealthiest goes up a bit but is still much lower than Scandinavian countries with a higher standard of living then why have their economies not collapsed? 

KPMG reckon about 62%. 
Summo’s point still stands: public services cost money and we can’t raise enough just from the top 5%. I agree, and I speak as someone who wants to see much better public services in the U.K. 

To pretend that there is some “scientific” basis for their policies where in fact, there isn’t.

So although you claim that an organisation known for its economics research in fact does no such thing - suggesting your grasp on this is... limited - you are also knowledgeable enough to understand exactly what such people are saying about the world? 

So at the Bank of England and the Treasury they are all just making it up as they go along? And Google’s ad pricing and so on, all just done on the back of an envelope with a few PhD’s knocking about to jazz it up later?

Summo's point on the top rate tax in Sweden didn't stand. 

What evidence have you that the stated objectives in the Labour Party manifesto can not be met by just taxing the top 5% more. 

I worked for a decade doing strategic financial planning and portfolio optimisation for a few of the biggest UK and global financial institutions. I worked directly with the chief economist of the biggest U.K. commercial bank. I’m not an economist by trade but I’ve got a pretty decent grasp on economic theory. I’m not saying everything in economics useless - but a lot of it is, in fact, you’d be hard pressed to find anything in economic theory actually being used effectively in finance. Or when they did, it blew up in their face spectacularly.

you’re trying to f*ck with the wrong guy here as pricing is my speciality. There is absolutely not much from economic theory that’s actually useful here. It’s all applied statistics, probability and financial modelling, which I’m grouping under “decision science”

Sure thing. Did your colleague tell you he was only there to provide “scientific cover” for decisions? 

Since you have a grasp of theory, tell me which bits work then - with the proviso that economics is much broader than finance.

Okay, so why does government employ these specialists then? 

As I’ve explained, they need to pretend there is a scientific basis to what are essentially political decision.

He’d be the first to say it. He once described his role to me as being an anti-anxiety medication. But beyond that he and his team did a lot of very useful things - just none of it has anything to do with what you would normally call economic theory.

Difficult to say, there isn’t much that has stood the test of time. I’d say Schumpeter theory of entrepreneurship seems to hold up pretty well still today.

But isn’t the BoE a strictly technocratic institution?

So they never used concepts about information, incentives, markets and so on? 

It’s a young subject. Getting rid of things that don’t work and replacing them with things that work better (even if still imperfectly) is a sign of doing something right surely?

BoE does a lot of very good stuff and have some of the most talented people I’ve ever met. But really they don’t dwell so much in economic theory, actually.

Sure, information theory, all the time. Game theory, all the time. You’re taking about mathematics here more than economics.

Does it work better ? Doesn’t look that way to me.  I’d say we’re still completely clueless. We still don’t understand the economy.

As a practitioner I don’t need to understand the economy, all I need is to map out what we actually know, what I don’t know, and work with that. It’s much more powerful than trying to fill in what you don’t know with something rubbish.

A bit late back to the party, sorry.

Growth does not have to be more stuff. It can easily be more value but people don't seem to be able to get their heads around this.

I agree we need to stop our addiction to buying stuff. FWIW, I buy very few new things these days. I have all I need and feel no compulsion to gather much more. I rarely go abroad, my partner and I usually pop up to the highlands or islands instead. Fancy food is possible one sustainable way to increase value if it's done the right way, locally and with much skill for instance.

(For disclosure, my biggest "stuff" spends are typically climbing shoes as my old ones wear out, and I'd like a new touring bike to replace my grandfather's 1970s Dawes Galaxy I've just retired after riding for pretty much the past decade.)

I absolutely agree that the world cannot sustain current consumption. It just can't and that much is obvious but this is nothing to do with government providing public services. If we have the people to do the work, they can be paid if the political will is there and the service will add value in its very existence.

And so, as nobody has actually given me an answer, would people prefer fiscal policy or austerity?

p.s. In response to a later comment of yours: isn't the Krone pegged to the Euro?

And therefore I'll say it again, you all know I will

That means the Krone is in effect not a sovereign currency and therefore you DO have to raise all money for government expenditure via taxation and borrowing. Not comparable with the UK.

I think you’ll find that using applied mathematics to describe markets is exactly what economics is.

Are you confusing what we know with what we want to do? And are you saying that despite increasingly large amounts of data, and increasingly sophisticated ways of analysing that data, we still don’t know much about how people interact? Are you saying that the response to 2008 was as ineffective as the response to the Great Depression?

So the pursuit of knowledge is a waste of time? 

No. Free floating.

See above.

So directly comparable to the UK. 

The Forex market isn’t tribal. Markets are unemotional entities driven by decisions made by traders of every race and hue in every financial centre around the world. The strength or weakness of GBP is driven by expectations for the economy and interest rates. For example, GBP rises against USD when foreign investors switch from USD to GBP in the expectation of relatively higher returns from UK assets borne from an improving economy. It has nothing to with which team an Australian Forex trader supports. Unlike the Guardian journalist you quoted.

I don't have to. I am a business owner and one of Corbyn's "few". And, contrary to Labour's claims, paying all my tax in the UK, treating my staff well and sharing my profits with them. A far cry from Corbyn's painting of entrepreneurs in the same light as Farage's immigrants: "They're stealing your money". On the back of those unfounded slurs, Corbyn wants to confiscate 10% of all the capital in UK companies. How on earth do you expect investors to react?

No. But I understand how companies and investors behave. I've been putting my money, that's all my money, into companies for 25 years now, standing or falling on the strength of my decisions. As Rom kindly points out, I've got far more skin in the game than the members of what is a small sample of the UK's population of economists. 

Too kind 

Actually I'm an ex-Tory voter who'd vote Labour if it wasn't run by a clueless Marxist cheered on by a rabble for whom every dissenting voice is Tory scum.

Sorry but you do have to back up those numbers you pluck out of thin air. 

Where did JC state ordinary company owners are stealing our money? Where is an example of his "slurs", toward you? 

And JC is only putting up tax a little on those who earn big money in fact as I showed upthread it isn't as much as all the well off Scandinavian countries and they are doing great, no flight to Monaco for their big earners or collapse of their economies so why would ours? 

Prominent economists that would I'm sure know far more about the economy than you. 

Ah now we see why you howl about this terrible injustice of putting tax up for the wealthy to the same as Scandinavian countries. So all people who vote Labour are a rabble who think Tories are scum now? Come on that's ridiculous. And JC is a social democrat not a revolutionary Marxist. 

Do you think low earners in the UK should be taxed Scandinavian style too? That's what it will take.... Oh and 25% vat. And employers pay matched taxation of their employees. Even then you pay per visit healthcare, broadband isn't free either. 

Corbyns spending plan is just deluded. 

It’s not about the income tax. It appears you don’t understand business and capital taxes. He’s increasing business taxes by 100% (to 26% + 10%) and capital taxes by 250% to 500% (to 50%). In Germany, Switzerland, NL and Italy the rate of CGT Is 0%, in Belgium not much higher. 

No. Not all Labour voters are a rabble. But Corbyn is bolstered by a mob that glories in its self-righteousness while viciously castigating any dissent as heresy and glorying in the phrase “Tory scum”. For example, you personally use the term “Tory” as an insult, as in beyond contempt.

We can go on and on but you and I aren’t going to reach an agreement because we see the world differently. However, the world is better place for its variety and I enjoy your posts, so let’s leave it at that and hope for an outcome that we both can live with

Err, you are aware that Finland has been in recession for the past 4 years and have the dreaded austerity as part of their daily life and that Denmark isn't doing much better? As a long-term model things look bleak for both as their economic system makes them unable to react to a global downturn.

This is just your innacurate perception which has been distorted by establishment media propaganda.

The Labour manifesto is full of policies that will support business. This is the only passage which could maybe be distorted towards what you think but it is also a pro business message.

"Businesses are the heartbeat of our 
economy, creating jobs, wealth and 
innovations. 

But the upper echelons of corporate 
Britain have been corrupted by a 
culture in which the long-term health 
of a company is sacrificed for a quick
buck for a few: a short-term culture 
has seen some treasured companies 
asset-stripped, leaving workers, small
business suppliers and pensioners in 
the lurch. Too often, the link between 
reward and long-term performance is 
broken for short-term greed. 

Labour will take on short-termism and corporate greed, making sure good businesses are rewarded, not undercut."

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/

This must be the umpteenth time you've accused me of being swayed by the media. In one reply I pointed out that my brother, a university professor, actually knows and worked with Corbyn and I take some guidance from him. He says "Corbyn is a cnut".

Generally I'll satisfy myself with the answer that I'm perfectly capable of forming my own decision on Corbyn, or Johnson or Swinson for that matter. My analysis of the increase in taxation for business and investors in the previous post is empirical evidence of that capability. By contrast, your arrogance in lecturing an experienced businessman on how I should perceive Corbyn's plans for business mirrors Corbyn's authoritarian instincts. It is also quite laughable given the vast gulf in our experience of the business world. You're welcome to act as Corbybot on UKC but I suggest you confine your observations towards me to the provable instead of conjecturing on my cognitive powers. 

Excellent  I look forward to my business paying a very low rate of corporation tax so I can reinvest and also pay dividends 

I look forward to a low personal tax  rate on dividends.

Well I guess I have a different definition. I draw a distinction between practitioners and theorist.

That’s exactly what I am saying. Again there are specific domains where it works very well and we can prove it, but as soon as you go to the macro level it’s very hard to do anything, as for data, what happened is that the dimensionality has exploded, we can track many more things, but the historical volume is still too low. At best we’ve got 50 years of relevant data. Try do anything statistically with 50 data points and a hundred dimensions. Good luck. The curse of dimensionality prevents you from doing much with it.

You see the issue is that we live in a crazy world, if someone buys plastic toys in New York in makes the price of beef in Paris go up because the Chinese can now afford to eat proteins. You can’t predict much with something so complex and with so many feedback loops.

The response to 2008 has just alleviated the symptoms without fixing any of it. It was a debt crisis, and today, we have even more debt.

Nope. But building BS models of the world where it actually doesn’t lend itself to modelling, is a waste of time.

Thankfully the field is starting to recognise that after 300 years, there is interesting work going on with uncertainty at the core of it, so I’m starting to get some hope.

On the whole you've been reeling off Tory attack lines about business perceptions of Corbyns framing of business owners as the few. This is establishment media framing of Corbyns position and is an inaccurate portrayal of Corbyn's words which is what I wanted to point out.

Sorry, I was responding to your post and hadn't recognised we'd had dialogue before.

On your analysis of policy, which forms a very small part of your posting on this thread. Yes Labour's policies are good for the workers but you don't seem to recognise that, in an environment where the government are investing in growth in our economy, prosperity for the workforce doesnt have to be at the expense of business owners. Overall growth can make up for any increase in the share of growth that workers are given.

Labour want to reward the business that helps to increase the prosperity of all and prevent those businessas from being undercut by those that don't. Labour will create an environment that allows good businesses to thrive.

As per the Labour manifesto - we will reward good businesses. 

So where are the proposals to cut corporation tax for my good business which manufactures and exports ??????

The way I read it he’s been articulating his perceptions as an actual business owner of Corbyn’s policies. 

Here’s a mind blowing idea - maybe the way Corbyn’s business related policies are framed in a lot of the media is actually how a lot of business owners see them and not a grand conspiracy to prevent the second coming. 

This immediate recourse to writing off everyone who disagrees with Labour as The Enemy so that they can be ignored is exactly why they’re currently barely in the running for this election instead of cleaning up. 

Lovely little phrases to throw in a manifesto, an employee might think they sound reassuring. But to the self employed, or business owner etc. Without detail of the substance behind them they are just meaningless words. What they do hear are very specific tax increases that will directly impact them. 

Well business owners probably do see Corbyns polices that way but this is a bit circular isn't it because their perceptions are shaped by establishment media propaganda like everyone else's.

I don't regard anyone who is taken in by it as "the enemy" because the propaganda is everywhere and unavoidable.

I may be aware of it when it comes to Corbyn and left wing issues but I dread to think how my perceptions have been distorted about other matters.

That's why I want to correct these distortions where I see them.

What else can you put in a manifesto other than words? No one else has put together a more credible manifesto than Labour.

If investment is increasing on a large scale to kick start our economy, where do you think that investment will go if not to the businesses who supply the government and their supply chains? Do you not think that could offset any small tax increases you may have to make in order to pay your fair share into the society that makes your business thrive?

Actual proposal of what they think will help business as. Amounts they intend to invest. Tax changes to encourage business to invest. Perhaps tax incentives for apprentices, training...or rebate for environmental related improvements...

Maybe the problem is Corbyn, his shadow cabinet, his advisor cronies etc..  haven't in the main ever worked in the private sector, let alone been self employed or a business owner. They've been protected from risk in their public sector or union jobs, they just can't relate. 

Maybe Corbyn will plough all the money into his newly nationalised companies and the existing public sector to try and buy success? He's no fan of the private sector is he? 

The economy is in a relatively good shape with full employment etc. It does not need a kickstart .a few nudges and tweeks. 

Listen mate, I’d be the first to say that we have a big problem in the current economy.

We now know thanks to better data that wealth has actually been flowing from the poor to the rich since the 1980s, even though we don’t really know by which mechanism.

Its high time for some kind of “left-wing” readjustment but the way Corbyn wants to go about it is to reuse failed 1970s policies that kill businesses and blame rich people.

A flat wealth tax combined with higher income tax would probably go a long way, but his solution to everything is “nationalise the railway”. Sorry but I don’t see it.

summo why do you love tories so much and lick their bumbums in every single political thread?

My main point was that overall business confidence will not be affected in the same way as the financial markets by the prospect of a Corbyn government. How tribal or emotional the financial markets are is not relevant when we're talking about the levels of confidence as opposed to the causes. 

Link me any thread where I've specifically cheered on the tories or their manifesto. Don't confuse a dislike of far left Corbyn for support of the far right, there is a lot of ground between the two.  

I've voted lib Dem in the past and will again. The only party that acknowledge better services aren't for free and will cost everyone more tax. There is no escaping this fact. 

There is new “economic “ analysis of the data which suggests this may not be true. See the Economist last week. 

I believe this was an article about measure of inequality, but there is a much deeper insight to be had from newer models of wealth growth. They suggest a reallocation rate of about 2% from poor to rich has to be occurring.

The beauty of it is that it doesn’t require any assumption as to why or how this is occurring, nor any analysis of the redistribution factors. The downside is that it doesn’t explain why.

See https://ergodicityeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/ergodicity_economic... 

page 95 and following.

Nah.

Your pleas of centrism might have a shred of credibility if you'd ever said anything negative about the Tories but you haven't. Ever.

In fact come to think of it, you've never said anything positive about the Lib Dems either.

You have a love that dare not speak it's name.

Admittedly the lib Dem leadership of late has been what you might politely call weak. I totally agreed with their 1% for the nhs tax rise pledge and have said this many times. I'd even cope with their pro eu stance as the majority of their other policies would make the UK a better place without bankrupting it. 

Edit. If doesn't change the fact Corbyn a a Muppet. So is Boris albeit less so. 

Bit more than an article. Well worth reading. It’s interesting to see economists starting to question this assumption.

Since we are referring to what is relevant only then how is that required to fulfil the policy in the Labour Party manifesto? 

You can say that and do, often, yet repeated fail to show how when asked. 

Come off it! Boris almost defines muppetry. I could easily imagine the Oxford Dictionary using him as an example in their next edition, if it were not libellous. 

No not business owners like you but the few mega corporations that dodge tax, I'm sure you must agree its time they started paying their fair share. 

You are correct I am but a worker who has other priorities and much less responsibilities than you do I appreciate that.Since you do know more about tax than me and since we were specifically comparing the tax rises for the super rich in the Labour Party manifesto and the equivalent in Sweden, Norway and Denmark then what is the current business and capital taxes in these specific countries? 

Yet you say all rich people will run to Monaco because Labour Party taxes on them will be so terrible, yet those taxes will be less than the successful Scandi countries tax their rich and there is to my knowledge plenty of super rich still there and enjoying successful countries with high standards of living.

So perhaps these 163 economists may have a point about voting Labour. 

A lot of people are suffering through 9 years of Tory cuts and austerity that has seen 4 million people in the UK now dragged below the poverty line, kids going to school hungry, increases in homelessness and huge cuts to support services. We see millions of people who can't build a future on precarious temporary work or buy a house, we see the huge rise in suicide of disabled people told they are fit to work and massive increase in food bank use even by many who actually work long hours. Then we see the fact that the - Richest 1,000 (uk) families control total of £547bn, rising by more than 112% since 2009 (the credit crunch) , and own more than the poorest 40% of British households. 

Millions of people are affected by these class warfare tactics of the Tories and see loved ones and communities suffer greatly from it so is it any wonder some of these suffering people shout Tory scum? And BTW that is usually the anarchists of class war who fight back with that term. 

Thanks I know we want the same good outcomes for everyone in the UK but have different routes to the same goals. 

Hmm, Danmarks Nationalbank doesn't think the krone is free floating.

They apparently work to keep the krone within a certain tolerance of the Euro. Or so their website says.

But whatever, it's probably a sideways distraction.

"full" employment

Hold on, isn't this an example of a subject that you said was pointless and couldn't possibly tell us anything about the world, which was far too complex to be modelled?

And how can your favoured approach lead to "deeper insight" if there is no explanation of why something is happening? That does rather go against the way things have been done for several decades...

But you said Swedish krona which is free floating.

Swedish corporation tax is roughly 22%(UK is 18), but because of matched funding they pay 32% pay roll tax, ie. 32% of their annual wage bill. Plus the usual vat at 25%.... 

But in this case, what is modelled is simply wealth growth over time and its reallocation between agents, you actually don’t need to understand how or why it’s happening.

The only questionable assumption is of course that wealth over time can be modelled with geometric brownian motion, which clearly isn’t the case in reality, but for this purpose of looking at the past without trying to explain it is absolutely fine. Fir this purpose all you need is a model with a good fit it, you don’t use it to explain the world or to make prediction.

Well you have a point it does not indeed tell you why it’s happening, but the “why” is exactly the kind of thing we can’t really now due to complexity. The approach here is good as it focuses on what we know and then derives constraints that must be satisfied.

Sorry I'm late to the party and not had the chance to read the full thread.

In the extremely unlikely event that nobody has observed this yet, I just wanted to say you are totally full of shit.

The choice between Labour and the Tories is whether you want a fast or slow start to wrecking the future. 

The LibDems are an utter shower at the moment too (and I have always voted Liberal).

I'm utterly despairing of how to vote...not that it matters in the least in one of the safest Con seats in the country.

But please don't try to presnt Corbyn as anything other than a progress holocaust.

who would you suggest voting for then...

Have a flick through here

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifes...

It's full of proposals to help business including the following.

• A National Transformation Fund of £400 billion to tackle the climate and environmental emergency because the cost of not acting is far greater than the cost of acting.
• A National Investment Bank, backed up by a network of Regional Development Banks, to provide £250 billion of lending for enterprise, infrastructure and innovation over 10 years.
• Smaller loans will be available, enabling thousands of bottom-up transformational changes by start-ups, small businesses, local co-operatives and community projects.
• Tackle late payments that leave small businesses and the self-employed waiting months to be paid, including banning late payers from public procurement.
• A strong future economic relationship with the EU that can support UK businesses.
• Put British innovation at the heart of our procurement to support local sourcing and reshoring, so that every investment we make strengthens our manufacturing and engineering sectors and supply chains.
• Guarantee no increases in VAT.
• Make it easier for employers to spend the Apprenticships Levy by allowing it to be used for a wider range of accredited training
• Investing in people to prepare them for the jobs of the future through the National Education Service. Making sure training delivers the right skills by giving employers a role in co-design and co-production of qualifications.
• Industrial strategy to help develop the industrial base needed to deliver high-quality exports and the decent jobs that go with them.

Labour are the party that will support British business and jobs.

As I said

"I'm utterly despairing of how to vote"

I don't know any business owners who would agree with you. A Corbyn majority instantly places a significant extra tax burden on every business in the UK. That will fundamentally compromise cashflows and I can assure you that nothing hits business confidence like falling cashflows. Then factor in the proposed confiscation of ownership which strikes at the heart of an entrepreneur's motivation. Now consider the upheaval from a shift in industrial policy towards state control. How you can expect business owners to express confidence in those circumstances is beyond me.

Welcome! 

Feel free to explain your reasons. 

That difficult challenge has already been addressed by the Tories. Have you not seen how upset Mr Trump is about the proposed digital transactions tax?

The answer is lower than they would be in the UK under Labour, chiefly because of the proposed CGT rises and profit confiscation levy. A comparison with Scandinavia isn't necessarily helpful however because there are hundreds of alternative national fiscal jurisdictions that are considerably lower. It isn't as though the UK would suddenly become a Scandi social democratic paradise the minute taxes are doubled.

I haven't actually said that. I pointed our that capital is mobile and investors move their money where they see the best opportunity. I can stay in the UK but move my money to work in other vibrant economies, just as foreign investors move their money in and out of the UK. The UK's billionaires won't immediately flee, but you can't stop their money working elsewhere. And you want to encourage foreign investment in Britain. Confiscating their profits and forcibly taking over their assets at a discount to market value is going to have the opposite effect.

You'd be surprised how many businesses already share financial success with their workers. But these tend to be businesses based on intellectual capital (patents, technology, accounting, legal expertise etc). A coherent industrial strategy would focus on developing more digital and STEM skills, as these are the key to success today, and would lead to better outcomes for businesses and higher rewards for employees.

Investing people, develop strategic industrial base, widen the range of a credit training, strong economic future

But it's still 99% non specific fluff, compared to very precise tax increases. 

Apart from under Blair who was really centrist, when has any Labour policy helped UK industry to any degree. It went to the dogs in the 60s with USA bail outs and currency devaluation, it certainly didn't go any better in the 70s for any party with another bail out etc. These are the era's of the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell and McCluskey hark back to as Labour's glory years of union dominance. 

The one off IMF loan was not needed as Healy later pointed out and the troubles in the 70s were down to a not so small matter called the 1973 oil crisis that affected the entire world economy. Why do right wingers always lie about Labour and the economy when Labour give a little power to the workers rather than constantly giving out to the employers. 

At the moment millions of un-unionised workers can't build a future because they are in throw away work which is down to Tory policies. Now unions have no power other than in a couple of strategic places which resulted in people getting £apittance an hour before Labour introduced the minimum wage.

BTW thanks for the reply upthread on Scandi tax rates, cheers. 

you’re being unreasonable here actually the labour manifesto is pretty well detailed and concrete. That is compared to the tory manifesto which is devoid of substance.

No can you show me? And if the problem of mega corporations not paying tax has been addressed then can you show me how and why do you disagree with JC doing just that? 

The Scandinavian model is a good comparison as it is a success story economically and with a better standard of living than us (so a good example for us to aspire to) yet the tax rate on the super wealthy is more there than the amount JC wants to raise it to here. You raised a very valid point that I was unaware of concerning business and capital tax increases in the British Labour Party manifesto which would conflict with the figure I keep banging on about. Can you show me where you get this from and I can then calculate and adjust my figures? I'm not saying for one minute that I don't trust you BTW but without numbers I can't do the sums. 

Right sorry, I get it now, I thought you said billionaire rich peeps would be off to Monaco if the L. P. were voted in but probably someone else wrote it, no worries,crossed wires. However my handy comparison with Sweden, Norway and Denmark still stands as capital flight under higher taxation has not affected their economy in fact it is excellent. 

We get a yearly profit share where I work so I'm no stranger to that and it is a welcome boost but I work for a decent place with a big unionised workforce which does help balance out the power. 

Your point about the oil crisis is a good one. And it just so happens that the Great Financial Crisis  occurred recently and every developed nation on earth is still feeling the effects. Brexit is one of these and the rise of populism another. Look at France, where, despite 5 years of anti-austerity, the economy and job insecurity is bad enough that the whole nation is going on strike today after rioting much of this year. Social Democratic poster child Germany is in recession. Japan’s economy is stagnant. I’m there now and there are homeless on the streets. Maybe it isn’t just evil Tories deliberately making life hard and instead some wider economic forces at work?

Germany hasn't had a Social Democratic government for 15 years and judging by their current popularity probably never will in the future. They are also not in recession.

They dodged it by 0.1%! 

Probably a convenient rounding error to avoid destroying market confidence. 

Sorry I should have said that German manufacturing is in recession. As for social democracy, thanks for the correction and you are right to draw the distinction between CDU and SPD, but I would argue that from where the UK stands, Germany looks a lot like one!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-pmi/german-manufacturing...

You keep citing the nordics just because of their tax rate, but ignore all their other internal policies which don't resemble anything of uk Labour's. Sweden's left or socialist party, whose policies are closest to Corbyn's Labour polled under 6% in the last election. There are more centrist parties who take the lions share. There is no demand to head back to the more socialist days of the early 80s or 70s.  

Businesses haven't fled sweden because corporation tax isn't much higher than the UK or central European neighbours. Before olof palme was shot he was suggesting policies that Corbyn would love. It's was also in this high tax era that Ikea and others fled and hq'd themselves elsewhere or structured themselves in a more tax beneficial manner. The same will happen in the UK if corporation tax rockets. 

Globally margins are right, recession is near, Corbyns ideas won't aid business, they have to decide where they their best chance of survival is and greatest chance of having some return on their investment. 

I suggest you don't take my word for it. Go to the HMRC website and make your calculations. Or go on a comparison site like this one

https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Sweden/capital-gains-tax

and you'll see that UK levels of CGT are towards the top end of the range compared to similar nations, and snapping at the heels of our Scandinavian friends. Factor in Labour's proposals and you'll see they increase to world-beating levels!

Corbyn's "we're just asking the better off to accept a tiny increase of 5%" turns into a walloping great increase of 250% on non-property gains, and 500% for business owners! Is he being honest with the electorate?

I don't disagree with the policy. I disagree with the presentation. The Tory government hasn't been abetting tax avoidance, as Corbyn claims. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-the-new-digital-...

This is an international problem that every government across the world is wrestling with as traditional borders are rendered ineffective by a whole new economic paradigm of virtual commerce.

Considering Germanies dependence on exports I'd say they are doing fairly well at the moment though, even though the automotive sector is problematic the actual unemployment figures are still dropping (and coping with the odd million refugees).

The CDU/CSU seem to have found the middle ground, the good tax income allowing them to move into SPD/Green territory without upsetting business too much. And Germans can remember the last bout of austerity and Thatcherism, that came under the last SPD government.

I agree the Tories have not been encouraging avioidance. Far from it.

In the EU there was a couple of months ago a proposal for more transparency on corporation tax. The UK is a supporter of transparency in this area

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/28/12-eu-states-reject-move-t...

It was voted down by other countries.

Despite what people think the Tories are keen on this issue. It was Geoge Osborne who became reaaly interested in the subject when he was Chancellor as he was reportedly shocked about the scale of avoidance .

Its a complex issue requiring international cooperation. Even in the USA it varies from State to State ( Delaware etc).

Too easy to come up with soundbites on what is a complex issue.

https://www.ft.com/content/a1a14220-1801-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385

German industry hit by biggest downturn since 2009.

But a Corbyn majority isn't the most likely outcome, which is why business as a whole is not running scared in quite the way we might expect. 

The subject of this thread is the delivery of the Labour manifesto. That is the baseline of my comments.

Beat me to it

Too early too jump to conclusions. My business followed what goes on in Germany and there is a pick up in activity. So just not sure if it is a blip or a recession. 

We will have to wait a few more months. 

It's not technically a recession yet, but a 5.3% decline in industrial output in the year to October is significant.

 Or is it an adjustment back to an average from a peak.

No, it’s a significant decline in the manufacturing sector driven by emissions regulations and a drop in Chinese demand, some of it cyclical, some Trump trade war-driven. 

Plus the gradual switch to battery powered cars.

Not so gradual in terms of expenditures, only in revenues!

It’s all relative. 5% overall is not bad. 

Granted in automotive it’s dropped off a cliff.

as I see it they were struggling to keep pace with demand anyway as there is a shortage of skills. So it gives breathing space. 

Just to add some perspective from my side. I source electromechanical clutches from Germany. They were running at 16 weeks lead time when they should be under 6 weeks. Could not get the skills to keep pace with demand. 

This is not untypical. What had happened now is that their normal lead times have been restored.

I also had a German machine builder competitor they were running at 9 months , now back down to 14 weeks which is their norm. 

A different perspective.

We both know that is untrue as the Labour Party are the equivalent of the SAP social Democrats in Sweden and not the left or socialist party who are communist, why do you continue with this obfuscation? There was a Swedish professor just a couple of years ago who came over here and was astounded by the nonsense published in the British gutter press about Corbyn being a communist when as he put it he would be seen as just another run of the mill social democrat in any Scandinavian country. 

But the Labour Party manifesto only wants to raise our current low rate on corporate profits back to where it was in 2010 so how is that rocketing? 

Yet-

We have had ten years of near zero productivity growth. Corporate investment has stagnated. Average earnings are still lower than in 2008. public services are under intolerable strain – which the economic costs of a hard Brexit would only make worse. We now moreover face the urgent imperative of acting on the climate and environmental crisis. 

Given private sector reluctance, what the UK economy needs is a serious injection of public investment, which can in turn leverage private finance attracted by the expectation of higher demand. Such investment needs to be directed into the large-scale and rapid decarbonisation of energy, transport, housing, industry and farming; the support of innovation- and export- oriented businesses; and public services. It is clear that this will require an active and green industrial strategy, aimed at improving productivity and spreading investment across the country. Experience elsewhere (not least in Germany) suggests a National Investment Bank would greatly help. With long-term real interest rates now negative, it makes basic economic sense for the government to borrow for this, spreading the cost over the generations who will benefit from the assets. As the IMF has acknowledged, when interest payments are low and investment raises economic growth, public debt is sustainable. 

At the same time, we need a serious attempt to raise wages and productivity. A higher minimum wage can help do this, alongside tighter regulation of the worst practices in the gig economy. Bringing workers onto company boards and giving them a stake in their companies, as most European countries do in some form, will also help. The UK’s outlier rate of corporation tax can clearly be raised, not least for the highly profitable digital companies. 

163 leading economists.

So not weakening the economy at all but strengthening it. 

How does it become those numbers? 

Yes it is international but under the Tories - 

The UK  is by far the world’s biggest enabler of corporate tax dodging, helping funnel hundreds of billions of dollars away from state coffers, according to an international investigation.

Of the top 10 countries allowing multinationals to avoid paying billions in tax on their profits, four are British overseas territories.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-corporate-tax-avoidance...

an index published today by the Tax Justice Network found that the UK has “single-handedly” done the most to break down the global corporate tax system which loses an estimated $500bn (£395bn) to avoidance.

So yes you are correct it is an international problem but one the UK Tories help create and maintain. 

This is what the Labour Party will change, money that should be going back into our society for us not the few. 

It's great that you are so up to speed on the manifestos of parties in a country you have no connection to. I can assure you social democrats are nearer the centre than Corbyn, McDonnell, McCluskey. 

A couple of years ago... how long has Corbyn been leader and published his manifesto? Can you link the article?

From 18 to 26%... bearing in mind sweden is at 22% that's 4% over the high tax nordics. 

After a debt driven recession and we are currently facing another. The UK still has an annual deficit too. Much of the West is stuffed, it's borrowed too much, can't grow it's way out if It, can't  afford better services. 

Has no relevance. Wait until it's  a choice between inefficient humans and machines, you see Labour back manual workers every time, protecting old industry, never moving forward. 

I'd agree, all earners need to learn to live with less if they want to fund better state services. 

Higher wages, higher taxes..  what do you think will happen to uk industry? 

Who pays for It?

Experts in ?

Which countries?

Good idea, they'll probably move to sweden which has lots already, especially as it's a very mobile industry and tax would be 4% lower here. Many already offices in both like amd. 

And yet as per my previous post the Uk has been pushing for greater transparency, but this has been rejected by other countries. 

So your viewpoint does not stack up. 

JCFPM

That's a rather different issue. There has been a skills shortage in the small engineering sector in Germany for some time now. https://www.ft.com/content/fd1078c8-03c7-11e9-99df-6183d3002ee1

❤️

Naturally engineering isn´t the German economy as a whole anyway which is why we haven´t gone into recession, other industries are still groaning under the strain particularly construction and consumer confidence is high as well, where I live you don´t phone a heating engineer or a builder, you make an appointment for your children to do it!

The car industry is having fun for sure, the odd trade war and Brexit has made some problems but on the other hand they are using the change to alternative energy as a reason to have a bit of a clean out and the unions are effectively powerless, BMW, Audi and Mercedes all announced their cost savings plans AND their investment plans for the future (my local BMW factory is just getting €400m to change over to electric vehicle production and that is only a drop in the ocean), they all have a proven track record of profitability that they can finance and justify huge investment, unlike say Tesla (who are also building their European plant in Germany). The supply industry are in the most turmoil, companies like Shaeffler and Continental are having to change rapidly from i.c. engine parts but they are the headliners, somebody IS still going to be building petrol and diesel engines in the foreseable future for either heavy plant/trucks or areas where electric cars are a non-starter. The upside is companie like TRW who I drive past who are building a new works beside the old one, they make airbags and the trigger systems and are expanding due to the need for immobilising systems for battery packs. Same for Osram (the struggling lighting manufacturer) who are fighting off  a German owned Austrian company who want their sensor division.

In Bavaria we´re a bit isolated from the turmoils of say Thyssen Krupp so it´s really hard to see any downturn in industry or the economy, full employment (and four times as many vacancies as umemployed), waiting lists well into 2020 for almost any engineering work. Changes to the immigration rules to let more non-EU skilled workers in as we are losing best part of 2% of GNP because of skills shortages don´t make it look like there´s a fundamental problem and luckily industry is allowed the flexibility to react which under socialism would be questionable.

A more realistic assessment. 

Now you tell me that I have no connection to Sweden?My 4 trips last year alone to Sweden through work on a prototype engineering product must have been in my imagination I take it. The SAP have always been the sister to the British Labour Party even during the much more socialist policies of Labour in the 40s etc. 

This years LP manifesto is as radical as the last a few years ago, not much difference in that respect. I will search later for the article about the Scandi professor. 

Our corporation tax was 26% just a few years ago and did that tank the economy? The corporate tax rate in Germany is 30%,in France its 31%,Australia and Japan its 30% and 25% in Holland, so what is the big scaremongering about? 

Yet under the Tories the richest 1,000 British families have doubled their wealth since the collapse of capitalism in 2008 by a whopping 112% and you say nothing. And 14 million Brits live in poverty and you say nothing. With historically low interest rates there has never been a better time to borrow which will stimulate the economy and help people which is the point these economists are making. 

Is the Labour Party manifesto pledge of a massive green revolution protecting old industry or new? Tell me. And is this not the most urgent in fact critical matter in this election along with the disaster of leaving the EU? 

What a lousy ten quid an hour? That's basic to eek out an existence in the UK and as I pointed out the high earner tax is lower than that in successful Scandinavian countries. 

Yet their high earner tax would be much greater than 4% so not such a good move. 

The company I am talking about has 4000 employees on one site in Germany. Hardly small. 

Doubt that's a concern when given your knowledge of sweden you'd know that outside the big 3 cities you can buy a 3 of 4 detached house for £100-150k, often less. Paying more tax here, would still enable a higher standard of living. 

Here are some examples, somewhat crudely expressed but the gist is there.

For investors, CGT on non-property assets goes from 20% to 50%, that's a 2.5x increase, hardly "just 5%". CGT is 0% in Germany, NL and others.

At the lower end of the scale, taxation for the self-employed goes from 26.5% (19% CT + 7.5% Dividend tax) to 46% (26% CT + 20% Dividend Tax). Before anyone points out these are crudely calculated (there is some offset between the two taxes in both cases), I acknowledge that, but this is an attempt to make a simple explanation of a complex subject.

These are your relatively low paid workers who Labour should be supporting. More to the point, they are a big part of the economy. It would be impossible to make good those extra taxes no matter what illusory boost Labour claims it will provide to the economy. Those higher taxes have a real cost in terms of cashflows to small businesses, and that affects jobs.

Your lack of awareness of the numbers is undermining your argument and revealing of Labour's obfuscation over the true cost of their fiscal plans.

You're totally focused on only one side of the equation here.

Labour are investing £650bn into the British economy with procurement rules designed to favour British SME's rather than huge multinational corporates. That's an average of £114,000 distributed across Britain's 5.7m businesses.

So Britain's business owners are being asked to pay some extra tax but in return they are getting a massive injection of spending into their businesses.

Labour will give our economy the boost it needs and make us all more prosperous.

I presume that means they are pro hard Brexit as it sounds likely to breach eu regulations?

It's true all you have to do is spend spend spend... looking at Greece, worked a treat there. 

So we're going to spend our own money in our own market whilst enforcing rules that will very likely restrict our ability to sell in other markets?

From a business perspective that doesn't sound like a recipe for growth.

Does not stack up.only some businesses benefit from trading with the public sector. It’s irrelevant if you for example sell B2B or B2C. 

Most will say “ so what” it’s not relevant to my market.

Sounds to me like an economy in which good businesses like yours, which do not need help because they have strong products in growing markets, end up providing life support in the form of large tax payments that are directed towards weak businesses that rely on government largesse for their existence, thus compromising your and the UK’s competitiveness and reducing productivity.

I am sure you hear of horror stories of small firms bidding for public sector work. Ranging from diversity statements, trade union representation and poor rates of return being imposed on contracts. 

Have a friend who runs a care business where one local authority in which he operates  imposes a return of 3% . Needless to say he does not bid.

There are probably  simple procurement guidelines which could be adopted to open up more public procurement to small businesses there is no real need for this type of  largesse .

In reply to:

Some of the replies above just go to show that you don't need any knowledge of macroeconomics to run a successful business.

https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company

Yes, an economy grows mostly by trade occurring within its own borders. Even very small countries mostly sell goods and services to themselves.

It doesn't matter if your business trades directly with the public sector. An injection of £650bn will create a boom that will necessarily spread throughout the whole economy.

That would also depend where that £650bn came from in the first place? Is that tax from the same businesses who you claim will benefit? 

You said in one of your earlier posts Labour is planning to spend £650bn by altering procurement rules. Can you expand on what that actually means?

I am assuming that means we will have left the EU as large contracts are subject to EU procurement rules anyway. 

Ah, pile the jam high you mean?

I think here you've identified a benefit of leaving the EU, the Build it in Britain strategy would be more effective outside the EU than within it. That's not to say it won't be extremely effective within the EU, I'm sure there is some flexibility within the EU's rules that the Conservatives probably haven't bothered about with their laissez faire style of economic policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/24/corbyn-build-it-in-br...

For instance, when services are procured from the private sector, full tax compliance will be one of the factors that contracts are awarded by.

The National Institute for economic and social research, which has the most comprehensive forecasting model of all economic bodies outside government, today published studies that show that neither Labour’s nor the Tories’ spending plans are likely to have a significant impact on the economy.

The reason? There is very little slack in the economy for it to grow intrinsically. Or, to put it another way, the economy is doing very well and any improvement will come from extraneous factors, eg global trade, not local stimulus.

No the spend comes from any reserves, borrowing from investors (putting saved money to work in the economy), or even just instructing the BoE to print the money. As the economy grows the spend comes back to the government through tax and the investors are paid their return.

That I believe.

My impression “on the ground” from the past 3 years of the UK economy is that everybody is working flat out but going absolutely nowhere.

There is a big productivity problem and a big skills problem. And I don’t think it can be fixed with more spending.

There is an annual deficit.

Private investment  ?

Not working elsewhere, the minute they stop qe in Europe it drifts back into recession. 

As easy as that, which is why all other  countries which have borrowed now have zero debt? 

If you look at productivity across sectors, there are some striking differences. As measured by revenue per employee, the technology sector is a clear standout with a steep and steady, rising curve, while another pillar of the economy, financial services, shows declining productivity that is prompting significant employment cuts.

Or to put it another way, the only department in most banks that is still busily hiring is IT. The clear message is that the UK ought to have been investing in more STEM-based education at a young age. Arguably the solution is less one of spend than of focus and there have been a number of initiatives launched towards this end.

I’d agree, but the problem is your bank IT department has nobody decent to hire.

I frankly doubt that education in STEM is going to fix it. In my view it’s a broader problem with the UK education system which focuses too much on acquired knowledge and passing tests than actually “learning to learn”.

Good for looking good on international rankings, not that great to make adaptable brains.

Interesting observation - Which education system do you think does this well?

In my experience, the Eastern European ones.

Well I don't know what data they are looking at to say all is well? We just avoided recession by the skin of our teeth last month.

This paints a different story and interestingly the reccomendations read like the Labour manifesto.

https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/uk-economic-outloo...

No one is disputing the benefits of "upskilling" and the current government's proven efforts to engage more school leavers in STEM subjects are as worthy of note as Labour's intentions in the same regard. But nowhere does the pwc report advocate an avalanche of spending promises funded from imaginary sources like "reserves" let alone an orgy of borrowing and punitive taxation.

On a wider note, this strikes me as more a question of the composition of the UK economy than a failure of government. Nationalisation won't make workers more productive, technology will. How will your unions embrace the automation that is driving productivity gains in our competitor economies?

Yep. Bulgaria is the new Silicon Valley when it come to tech innovation. 

Yes, private investment. 

This investment isnt QE which was either a massive policy failure or a deliberate transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich depending on your outlook. 

QE didn't stimulate the productive economy, instead it propped up the failed banking system allowing it to carry on with its unproductive casino capitalism without any increase in lending to productive businesses.

40% of the benefit of QE went to the richest 5% of households who take their winnings out of the economy. This investment will be via new regional development banks and targeted at productive businesses.

We should have let all the banks fail, destroy everyone's savings and leave every business in the land without a means to collect debts, or pay staff and suppliers? How would that have gone?

Is that the same 5% that today pay 50.1% of all the tax (up from 39% at the turn of the century? Sounds like a good deal even before we discount your deceitful claim that the 5% do nothing for the economy when they are the employers and the senior workers (to be clear I'm not accusing the 95% of not striving themselves).

Sounds great in theory, who will put their money in, what's the leverage ratio, what return will investors get, who decides what a productive business is? The Labour party or the same type of bankers that are currently employed elsewhere? You've just reinvented the wheel. 

You have not really answered my question though.

You said in one of your earlier posts Labour is planning to spend £650bn by altering procurement rules. Can you expand on what that actually means?

100% spot on. You only have to look at unemployment stats to see the economy needs nudges not a wholesale restart.

That the top few % pay most of the tax means that they have hoarded most of the income for themselves and is a symptom of our broken economy.

The top 5% have had a massive handout of free money and now resent the policies that can lift the rest up a bit. They seem to be willing to turn a blind eye to the misery and hardship going on around them. There's no punitive taxes, just the taxes it takes to rebuild a fair society. Why do you resent this,you'll still be the top 5% and it will actually boost your business.

I'm in, or close to, the top 5%. 

What is this massive handout I've had?  I seem to have missed something.

Also, which policies do I resent?  You seem to know me very well.

Just replying to recent posts which are of an all is well nature and blind to the suffering all around them.

QE is the free money that has landed in the pockets of the wealthy.

Most people earning £50-150k haven't hoarded a penny. They studied, worked, often still studied at the same time, done ridiculous 70-80hr weeks on a 40hr salary to progress. Those self employed will have taken the leap and committed to being responsible for their own employment and salary, many will have risked every asset they own. Then when they become an employer they assumed responsibility for the employment and prosperity of others, ever had anyone's job and salary directly dependant on you? I suspect not, otherwise you'd have more respective for those who have jumped from under the protective umbrella of employee status. 

For every Lord who inherited their asset wealth there are probably a 100 every day people who have grafted for it and spend everyday focusing on keeping their business afloat. 

You make it out like unemployment and low pay are lifestyle choices but many on low pay have also studied, worked, often still studied at the same time, done ridiculous 70-80hr weeks just trying to keep their heads above water.

Work should provide a decent life for all and Labour's plans will increase prosperity for everybody.

No. That's not what I said is it. So don't play the child and misquote me. I said many who are moderately wealth or comfortable have worked exceedingly hard, taken personal risks and are keeping others in employment. 

Will? There is no evidence, just ideological views.

Out of interest,studied what subjects..?

Ok, what was your point then if not to contrast the worthy rich with the feckless poor? Many who are not reaping the rewards of society have also worked exceedingly hard, taken personal risks, and some also keep others in employment. The employers will benefit mostly with an average of £114k into their business.

Labour have a fully costed plan to make the benefits of society work for all.

This thread started with evidence more credible than mine but I have been saying why I believe in Labour's plan and nobody has disputed the economics. Its just been wealthy people turning a blind eye to people's misery and saying there is no need for change.

Labour will launch the largest-scale 
investment programme in modern 
times to fund the jobs and industries of the future, so that no one is held back.

The Labour Party have form for increasing workers pay. 

Was it the Tories who gave us a minimum wage? No it was the party created by British workers for British workers. 

Another distortion and more class war. We’ve been arguing that Labour’s spending plans are all very well but

a) the tax burden will extend well beyond the “few” about which Labour is disingenuous in the extreme

b) we already have the businesses of the future here in the UK. And they are thriving on the back of technological invention. Labour’s plans are for state intervention which doesn’t make the UK more competitive even if they are redistributive. You haven’t anywhere made a case otherwise.

That most people earning £50-150 haven't inherited a penny, they aren't the rich elite etc read the post again. 

But that's not a reason to punish the successful, the goal should be to lift others up, but drag everyone down. 

How? On average or absolute best case?

Fully costed? Imaginary growth and non specific borrowing. 

Who pays for the increase? It doesn't just appear magically, the money comes from somewhere?

Who increased it..  or who started student uni fees.. no party is perfect. 

It's not a class war, everyone will be better off from Labour's economic plan.

QE though is not the same as the banking bailout. It has been done a couple of times since the crisis and has inflated the price of assets which has disproportionately benefited the top 5% (whether they agree with the policy or not). Assets don't benefit the productive economy which the rest of us rely on and giving money to already wealthy people doesn't benefit the productive economy so much either because of the Marginal Propensity to Consume.

Sorry, you're right I hadn't made those points. I'd spent ages typing them out then lost it resulting in a much more hurried post the other morning.

I'm glad you agree that Labour's plans are worthwhile. Your a) is incorrect, Labour have costed them and the tax burden only needs to affect 5%. Your b) is akin to saying nothing needs to change which I don't think many agree with you about when they look around and see the suffering in broken Britain.

Labour's spending will boost the economy and I'd argue that we will be more competitive internationaly but, even if not, an economy grows mostly through internal trade so there will be a boost and we will all be more prosperous under Labour.

Then why did you deliberately misconstrue Summo's response?

Everyone saving towards a pension has benefited in the same way.

Given your leader was forced to admit in a deeply embarrassing TV interview that the taxes would affect those outside the 5% I don't think you're going to convince anyone on here. I've even described upthread how many self-employed workers well outside the 5% will see their tax bill almost double. Of course what do I know about tax after only 25 years in business? Remind me, what are your qualifications?

No. I'm in favour of ending austerity. But then so is Johnson, apparently. What I'm saying is that good businesses don't need the help you're offering. They do and will thrive in all conditions. It's weak businesses who are more likely to benefit from your policies and that is a form of redistribution that makes the UK less competitive overall.

If voting labour gives any chance of preventing this forseen but much lied about consequence by giving us a choice

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50719616

then I can vote Labour tomorrow even if my heart is not in it.

Just to top the excellent economic figures for the UK yesterday

IIRC the minimum wage was introduced in 1998 by that vile Tory-lite traitorous Blair government. Thank heavens True Labour have purged themselves of those evil people and the running-dog voters (like me) who supported them.

And never been in power since. ‘Running dog voters.’ What are you on? At the last election there were a million more Tory running dogs than ultra left dogma supporters.

And Momentum not evil ? You only have to see what they’ve ,ve done to Labour to understand what they would do to the country.

Still it will all come out tomorrow one way or another.

By the way I,m only repeating your use of words, as my language is not normally so provocative 

Perhaps I should have used more winking smileys. 

There were still a huge amount of old Labour types in the party then. So what is it about JC that you don't like compared to Blair?