Poll - Austerity - how has it affected you???

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by Cranker V2, Jul 28, 2012.

  1. Thanks John.

    You have to have optimism, because if you didn't, you'd run a warm bath and slit your wrists.

    There is still plenty of money to be made and plenty of people making money. You just have to convince yourself you're going to be one of them.
     
  2. Absolutely, it was obviously Keynes I had in mind. Poor Gordon Brown thought he had evened out the trade cycle, and did pretty well at it 1997 to 2007. Then the hurricane hit in 2008, and the priority was keeping the whole country (and world) from falling off a cliff. Did pretty well at that too, but the consequence is the overhang which (I was suggesting) is what stops a Keynesian solution from being applied now.

    Concerning the "end of growth" point - are you suggesting we have reached some absolute constraint, inherent in the makeup of our planet, which is what is stopping further growth now? So that means no growth in the next ten years ... hundred years ... thousand years ... Hard to believe, I must say. In my view we are in a 'no growth' part of a cycle at present, which will change as all things change.
     
  3. Believe me, the public sector is similar, as far as British government departments are concerned. It has always been about contriving ways of doing more and more with less people and money. It's an interesting challenge to find ways of doing this. When you eventually run out of ideas, someone else has to take it on.
     
  4. So why do people quote Keynes? he only cribbed from the Old Testament after all....remember Joseph advising the Pharoah to save in the 7 good years to avoid starvation the the 7 lean years that were to follow...?
     
  5. Parallel lives we're leading, with only very slight differences in timescale ('managed out' 6 years back) ..... revenues, where I can pick them up, are lower than 20 years ago.

    Main difference is the multi-national I was 'managed out' of continued it's plans for irrational expansion fuelled by debt and has gone down in flames (SP dropped from c£5 to less than 3p and desperately trying to stave of administration). Unfortunately before it went 'pop' it managed to 'win' all the major long term contracts by putting in bids less than half of actual cost, and buy up (with debt!) all the smaller competitors who had been left with no work in the sector as they couldn't match such low bids, meaning there's nowhere else left to work......... The clients (privatised ex -public!) couldn't give a flying f$%K because they've met their regulatory obligations by appointing someone, no matter how sh!te they are at the job, so they still get their slice of the pie - bottom line is, the customer (and that's you 'n me folks!!!) doesn't get any service whatsoever.

    'Austerity' is simply this years excuse for squeezing your balls a little bit tighter this time around .....

    Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll watch Wakey try to knock seven bells out of t'Rhinos ..... before some teflon suited slimy git finds a way of taxing rugby to death ....
     
    #85 Littlebert, Jul 30, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
    • Like Like x 1

  6. Sounds just like the big global company I worked for. Their profit last year was approx $22 billion .... And they still had 45% job cuts in the UK.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Same here. Redundancy from 150 to 40 people in uk and that year almost double the profit for UK & Ireland division. USA no redundancy's. All they did it contracted work from uk to us workers.
     
  8. If I understand you correctly, Littlebert, I think your point is that free market capitalist companies always tend towards monopoly, unless governments intervene legally to stop them, and unregulated private monopolies result in catastrophe. If so, I agree. The point was well understood over 100 years ago and action was taken to cure the problem (e.g. US congress breaking up into parts monopolies in oil, railways and banks). Trouble is, it gets forgotten about in each generation, and the same lesson has to be learned by bitter experience all over again.

    However once a private monopoly gets so rich it is able to buy up and corrupt the political process, that cure is no longer available. Running a political party and election campaigns costs £millions, which have to come from somewhere, but those figures are pocket money to billionaires.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Well yes. Companies do not exist for the purpose of providing employment to as many people as possible, nor do public sector bodies. Private companies exist to maximise profits and shareholder value, which usually means employing as few people as possible. Public bodies exist to carry out their legally required functions while minimising public expenditure, which also usually means employing as few people as possible. Another word for this is improving productivity.

    Back in the 1950s and 1960s, British productivity was notoriously low (i.e. too many people were employed doing unproductive jobs) and this led to a very serious economic decline. The anecdotes in this thread seem to be about recent increases in productivity levels - but strangely this is represented as a 'bad thing'. Think it through again, may I suggest.
     
  10. Indeed, which is why those who are always whinging about not enough free market economics and the gov't getting over-involved always seem ludicrous to me.

    Business is a game you play to win. The idea is to make as much money, durably over time as possible. This means you try and eliminate competitors if you can. Once you've done that, you can charge what you want for your product (if it's vaguely essential) and dictate terms to consumers. You don't actually have to have a monopoly. A duopoly will do, or a cartel. You can even have an unspoken duopoly or cartel (seeing as they are illegal). I once worked for a well-known company in the 80s which had one major competitor offering the same products. Our pricing strategy was known as "managing the duopoly". Companies often raise prices once the leader has done so.

    The government's job in all this is to act as a referee in the interests of fair play - because somewhere in all this, there is supposed to be some notion of fairness, towards competition and towards the consumer.

    Microsoft has been beaten up before about shipping Explorer with Windows - deemed to be unfair to other browser companies. Strangely, Apple, which ships Safari, is left alone. I only mention this because Microsoft is about to be hit with a monster fine for shipping Explorer again with the latest version of Windows. That oversight may cost them $1bn. Looks as if Apple has better lobbyists in Washington.

    There is little point whinging about companies maximising profits - that is what they are there to do. But it's fair to whinge that your government isn't protecting you against them - that is one of the things you should have elected them for.
     
  11. Well sure, that's the accepted orthodoxy. But it may be time to think up a new one. What is the point of companies making ever-increasing profits? Should the owners (shareholders) who contribute little to the working of the company be the ones to benefit from all productivity gains, at the expense of those actually doing the work? You've studied philosophy, what's your philosophical take on that?

    Of course, plenty of companies aren't run in this way. Law firms and doctors are often partnerships where all workers own the company and get a slice of the pie. Why wouldn't that work on a more industrial scale? Then there might be a more humane way of looking at work. It is more important for people to be in work, however modestly perhaps, than for some to have lots of money (more than they can spend on sensible things) and others to have bugger all to do.You can disagree with me, of course. It's just that the out of work will eventually make life a misery for the in-work, with their drug addictions, crimes and anti-social behaviour. Is that not largely what is going on in South Africa?
     
  12. So Glidd, are you actually suggesting that there is something wrong with the "I'm all right Jack" approach to society and economics?

    Oh! The horror! :tongue:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Yeah, it's a pretty unfashionable viewpoint.
     
  14. You have to understand, with politics there is only black and white, right or left, it's only ever one thing or the opposite of that thing.
    Saves having to think too deeply about anything :smile:
     
  15. i much prefer the Swiss system. You can vote for whoever you like. A bit of right wing, a bit of left, a bit of green. In any case, when they try to decide anything important, you get a referendum on it before it can be passed into law, so the people get the chance to kick it out. Meant to be a very expensive system. I look on it as a good investment. Common sense generally prevails - not always, but generally.

    The referenda are preceded by debates on the TV for those interested in doing their civic duty of voting in a vaguely clued-up manner.

    Do I think that Switzerland is better managed than the UK? Yes.
     
  16. I've heard from plenty of people outside of Switzerland who think it's an awful place to visit. I know two people who live/have lived there who think it's a decent place to be.

    Hmmm ...
     
  17. What didn't they like about it?

    "An awful place to visit" - strueth, that's pretty condemning. You've got me interested. I've been here 25 years and hopefully won't ever have to leave.
     
  18. BUgger off, we're full :biggrin:

    Actually that's not true, I hear the red centre of Australia is very picturesque ...
     
  19. Great thread by the way. I have a burgeoning interest in Economics as I've started studying it recently and have no undergrad studies in it.

    Also interested to hear about any hybrid socialist/market economy debates/solutions.

    We (the global we) need an icon politician who has great charisma, independently wealthy and a strong sense of morality to break the business owned political cycle...
     
  20. That'd be nice if it were true - the privatised companies I referred to are undertaking (or in this case, NOT) a direct service to the public using monies levied directly against the public who have no choice but to buy their regulated service from that company ......... they agree to do something at a certain cost; the regulator agrees; they then appoint someone at a lot less than half the rates they used to calculate the initial cost; the appointed contractor can't do it at that cost so it doesn't get done; the regulator fines them just enough to fund the regulators equally cushy existence - end result - Private company makes 50% internal profit for doing nothing. In-house contractor carries on regardless paying minimum salaries to as few as possible. Regulator looks (to the outside) to be doing their job. And the gov gets to apply corporation tax to the 50% profit ......... all of which leaves the customer with a sh!te service which in the past 5 years has gotten so poor that we have the ludicrous position of drought restrictions (hosepipe bans etc) being declared in areas where flooding is occurring.

    There are sound engineering reasons why this is the case, and it is not 'an act of god' that the distribution/storage/treatment networks haven't been maintained, let alone improved, to keep up with customer requirements - improvements which customers have already been charged for!!!. The people who are paid to make sure this doesn't happen are actually better off not enforcing the regulations.

    Imagine if you went into a restaurant and ordered a meal priced at £20. The owner demands payment up front. He then appoints a contract chef who is cheap but can only cook burgers, so that's what you get to eat. You complain, so the ombudsman fines the owner £5, then pockets it for himself. End result, the chef gets paid £5, the ombudsman gets £5, and the owner keeps £10, which the gov. can then tax...... you get a £5 burger for £20 - but can't go to any other restaurants because the gov has given that one a monopoly to operate in your area. That is what happens in the UK's regulated industries right now!

    Right, off to check if ASDA have any part-time jobs wheeling trollies (waiting list was closed last month!) - talk about "Brain the size of a planet ....."
     
Do Not Sell My Personal Information