Do we need a Department of Culture, Media & Sport
Poll: Do we need a Department of Culture, Media & Sport
Total Members Polled: 147
Discussion
Or to think of it another way, if you take two cities like say Nottingham and Zurich, what is the substantial difference that makes Zurich more prosperous? Obviously no direct comparison is valid, but surely you would have to factor in that Nottingham is subject to a far greater tax burden from central government.
There's nothing in the size of the UK that necessitates such a high tax burden - the US being several times the size of the UK is lower, though creeping up and several smaller countries are higher. It's a series of choices about the size and scope of government.
There's nothing in the size of the UK that necessitates such a high tax burden - the US being several times the size of the UK is lower, though creeping up and several smaller countries are higher. It's a series of choices about the size and scope of government.
There really are no valid comparisons between countries. There is plenty to admire about Germany but is the overall economic picture so much different to our own?
Anything that doesn't involve a prescriptive plan is open to the accusation of being negative. That doesn't it isn't effective.
What specifically would you like to take from Germany and apply in the UK?
Anything that doesn't involve a prescriptive plan is open to the accusation of being negative. That doesn't it isn't effective.
What specifically would you like to take from Germany and apply in the UK?
Twincam
There's much I agree with there, especially on housing. Local government tax competition is a damn good idea too, and I understand there's a fair amount of that between Lander (?).
But I don't see much of that necessitating a state that spends 50% of GDP. In fact the German government also spends less as a percentage of GDP than our own.
Just because British politicians use free market rhetoric it doesn't actually make it so.
There's much I agree with there, especially on housing. Local government tax competition is a damn good idea too, and I understand there's a fair amount of that between Lander (?).
But I don't see much of that necessitating a state that spends 50% of GDP. In fact the German government also spends less as a percentage of GDP than our own.
Just because British politicians use free market rhetoric it doesn't actually make it so.
Everyone can agree that making money is good. The question is how.
Historically governments are pretty bad at making money commercially, companies and individuals are much better. The best thing the government can do in my view is to provide a solid framework of a stable currency, low inflation, low taxes and sensible, transparent law and regulation. The UK government isn't doing that at the moment, and I don't see how it possibly can when it's borrowing 10% of GDP, and spending near enough 50%.
The government seems to be lost in a myriad of things that it would like to do, many of them worthy in principle, but always expensive. We have to cut back the state if we are to provide that framework for people to make money.
My point isn't to get at farmers who want broadband or museums, or anyone else. And it's not about smashing down culture or selling national treasures to McDonalds either. The point is to find the savings from somewhere, so that we can get government back to a more realistic size, because when we have a debt default or a collapse of the currency or are unable to borrow any more money, we probably won't have any choice at all about what to cut or when to cut it.
Historically governments are pretty bad at making money commercially, companies and individuals are much better. The best thing the government can do in my view is to provide a solid framework of a stable currency, low inflation, low taxes and sensible, transparent law and regulation. The UK government isn't doing that at the moment, and I don't see how it possibly can when it's borrowing 10% of GDP, and spending near enough 50%.
The government seems to be lost in a myriad of things that it would like to do, many of them worthy in principle, but always expensive. We have to cut back the state if we are to provide that framework for people to make money.
My point isn't to get at farmers who want broadband or museums, or anyone else. And it's not about smashing down culture or selling national treasures to McDonalds either. The point is to find the savings from somewhere, so that we can get government back to a more realistic size, because when we have a debt default or a collapse of the currency or are unable to borrow any more money, we probably won't have any choice at all about what to cut or when to cut it.
I agree with much of what you say. The "how" question remains though. How do you encourage banks to invest in something that may or may not make money in 10 years time, versus something that probably will in 1 years time.
Lambast the banks all you like, but in my view the problem lies with those who fail to convince the banks to lend to them. Banks are crying out for good investments, but only if they can see a viable safe return.
Lambast the banks all you like, but in my view the problem lies with those who fail to convince the banks to lend to them. Banks are crying out for good investments, but only if they can see a viable safe return.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff