Discussion
ATG said:
There is no room for the protectionism that would be necessary for old-fashioned, labour-intensive heavy industrial jobs to magically return, full-stop, end of story.
serious question: why not? why cant the government, on major civil engineering projects say "you need to be a UK registered government and employ UK tax payers if you want to get this contract"??If an overseas company wishes to win the bid, they would need to commit to starting a UK business and employing UK people. Which means lots of tax income (corporation, income, NI plus local spend) for the UK coffers. We get a major infrastructure prpoject, and the government budget gets circulated back into the Uk economy. Whats not to like?
williamp said:
ATG said:
There is no room for the protectionism that would be necessary for old-fashioned, labour-intensive heavy industrial jobs to magically return, full-stop, end of story.
serious question: why not? why cant the government, on major civil engineering projects say "you need to be a UK registered government and employ UK tax payers if you want to get this contract"??If an overseas company wishes to win the bid, they would need to commit to starting a UK business and employing UK people. Which means lots of tax income (corporation, income, NI plus local spend) for the UK coffers. We get a major infrastructure prpoject, and the government budget gets circulated back into the Uk economy. Whats not to like?
1. The UK has many international companies competing for work across the world.
2. The concept of Quid Por Quo?
ATG said:
There is no room for the protectionism that would be necessary for old-fashioned, labour-intensive heavy industrial jobs to magically return, full-stop, end of story.
The EU seems to think it works for them 
(FWIW I agree with you...I don't think barriers are healthy. BUT...unilateral disarmament is a worse idea).
Murph7355 said:
The EU seems to think it works for them
(FWIW I agree with you...I don't think barriers are healthy. BUT...unilateral disarmament is a worse idea).
Getting rid of barriers to imports isn't disarmament though. Military strategy tends to advise blockading your enemy's supply chain, not your own.(FWIW I agree with you...I don't think barriers are healthy. BUT...unilateral disarmament is a worse idea).
Dr Jekyll said:
Getting rid of barriers to imports isn't disarmament though. Military strategy tends to advise blockading your enemy's supply chain, not your own.
Is there any nation on Earth that allows free trade into their country but accepts barriers on exports?The military analogy doesn't really work I think...
Murph7355 said:
Is there any nation on Earth that allows free trade into their country but accepts barriers on exports?
Maybe Singapore. Hong Kong used to and did very well out of it. The UK did in the 19th century and many other countries started to follow suit (even the French!). Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 20th January 15:16
Dr Jekyll said:
Maybe Singapore. Hong Kong used to and did very well out of it. ...
I don't believe they do any longer...and let's face it, whilst they are potential examples, in terms of them both as entities they're not really a benchmark for pretty much anywhere else 
(Love them both dearly as I do).Dr Jekyll said:
...The UK did in the 19th century and many other countries started to follow suit (even the French!).
...
Not exactly comparable to modern times either really. Our power as a trading nation was at its peak then in many respects (though arguably starting to wane). We didn't need to impose tariffs as there was no danger we weren't going to get max advantage out of trade....
(To reiterate, I don't want to see tariffs imposed. But if the EU want to fight over it...).
williamp said:
ATG said:
There is no room for the protectionism that would be necessary for old-fashioned, labour-intensive heavy industrial jobs to magically return, full-stop, end of story.
serious question: why not? why cant the government, on major civil engineering projects say "you need to be a UK registered government and employ UK tax payers if you want to get this contract"??If an overseas company wishes to win the bid, they would need to commit to starting a UK business and employing UK people. Which means lots of tax income (corporation, income, NI plus local spend) for the UK coffers. We get a major infrastructure prpoject, and the government budget gets circulated back into the Uk economy. Whats not to like?
ATG said:
williamp said:
ATG said:
There is no room for the protectionism that would be necessary for old-fashioned, labour-intensive heavy industrial jobs to magically return, full-stop, end of story.
serious question: why not? why cant the government, on major civil engineering projects say "you need to be a UK registered government and employ UK tax payers if you want to get this contract"??If an overseas company wishes to win the bid, they would need to commit to starting a UK business and employing UK people. Which means lots of tax income (corporation, income, NI plus local spend) for the UK coffers. We get a major infrastructure prpoject, and the government budget gets circulated back into them Uk economy. Whats not to like?
Surprisingly, the government doesn't think like that as the Treadury is quite Neanderthal in its processes with the public purse.
Mark Benson said:
However I disagree that global trade correlates to increased globalisation. Global trade is global trade, we agree deals with other countries and we do so with most from a standpoint of being a wealthy country and on our terms, not a fudge to accommodate the requirements of French farmers, dutch cheesemakers and Greek olive oil producers.
However, globalisation is a thing, it is whether we're in the single market or not and I don't see that being in or out protects our low-skill industries any differently except that if we wanted to try a bit of protectionism for certain areas, we could if we were setting our own rules around trade.
And what she said in Davos struck me as a warning, 'look at Brexit and Trump and see what your policies are doing' - people feel alienated and disenfranchised and when enough people feel they no longer have a stake in society they set about changing that, first through the ballot box but then by other means of that doesn't work. The EU took away people's ability to hold someone to account (it also gave politicians a useful fig leaf to hide behind) and by 'taking back control' I think many Leave voters were actually trying to repatriate responsibility.
I agree with all of that, change was needed to avoid something far worseHowever, globalisation is a thing, it is whether we're in the single market or not and I don't see that being in or out protects our low-skill industries any differently except that if we wanted to try a bit of protectionism for certain areas, we could if we were setting our own rules around trade.
And what she said in Davos struck me as a warning, 'look at Brexit and Trump and see what your policies are doing' - people feel alienated and disenfranchised and when enough people feel they no longer have a stake in society they set about changing that, first through the ballot box but then by other means of that doesn't work. The EU took away people's ability to hold someone to account (it also gave politicians a useful fig leaf to hide behind) and by 'taking back control' I think many Leave voters were actually trying to repatriate responsibility.
Garvin said:
I think you are considering the initial acquisition cost only. Williamp is suggesting, I believe, that although a premium may be paid for the acquisition there is a repayment to the exchequer in terms of income tax, NI and VAT from the employees and corporation tax and employers NI contributions from the company. There is also the possible saving to the exchequer of the additional employment taking people off benefits. The net result maybe better for the country's coffers than just contracting the lowest bidder if they are an overseas company.
Surprisingly, the government doesn't think like that as the Treadury is quite Neanderthal in its processes with the public purse.
I'm not just considering the initial cost at all. Quite the opposite. What do you think is the long-term cost of subsidising value-destroying jobs? Yes, of course the subsidy is partially offset by tax receipts and a reduction in unemployment welfare payments, but clearly it is still a net cost. If it weren't, then none of us would need real jobs; we could all live on benefits.Surprisingly, the government doesn't think like that as the Treadury is quite Neanderthal in its processes with the public purse.
Subsidising jobs is acceptable for short periods of time to allow the labour market to adjust to a change in demand, but it is a counsel of despair to suggest that the least bad option over the long term is to artificially inflate the cost of labour. Not only does it condemn the rest of the country to shoulder an unnecessary burden that reduces its productivity, but it's also a wasted opportunity for the subsidised workers to have done something else that was actually wealth-creating.
Having witnessed the social destruction caused by the decline in ship building, the implosion of coal mining, etc, it is easy to see how one might think that you have to shield people from market forces to some degree. But that is to misunderstand why these industrial declines were so painful. They came to crisis points BECAUSE they had been subsidised for so long. Had they been allowed to decline more gradually as they became increasingly uncompetitive, then the workforce would have had time to find new jobs, gain new skills, etc. Indeed it might have even spurred these industries to improve their practices and become genuinely competitive. All that was achieved by shielding these industries from market forces was to make their inevitable decline far, far harder and more abrupt than it need have been.
ATG said:
In your example, who do you think foots the bill? Answer: the UK tax payer. What you're suggesting is that everyone in the UK pays more for the civil engineering project so that one group of workers can be paid more than the global going rate. That just undermines UK productivity. You shouldn't be subsidising people to go to work. If that's the only way the job survives, it simply tells you that the job isn't worth doing. It's destroying value. Those workers need to find other jobs; jobs that people are prepared to pay to be done. We've already gone through the pain. Mining, steel, ship building, car assembly no longer provide millions of jobs in the UK. They haven't done so for decades. And the workforce has adapted to that by finding other types of jobs to do, and we've got pretty low unemployment even after a long period of economic stagnation following the financial crisis. Even if we could turn the clock back, why would we?
A scenario then. We want lots of steel, and we go to the market. Assuming that China aren't dumping, we find that there's a British company offering steel at a reasonable price, more or less in line with the rest of the countries around the world - maybe a little more expensive, but nothing bank breaking. We aren't talking about "It'll cost twice as much - and it will be s
t" like it was in the 1970s, but a genuinely competitive product. Should the government give some weighting to the fact that a British company is involved?ATG said:
I'm not just considering the initial cost at all. Quite the opposite. What do you think is the long-term cost of subsidising value-destroying jobs? Yes, of course the subsidy is partially offset by tax receipts and a reduction in unemployment welfare payments, but clearly it is still a net cost. If it weren't, then none of us would need real jobs; we could all live on benefits.
Subsidising jobs is acceptable for short periods of time to allow the labour market to adjust to a change in demand, but it is a counsel of despair to suggest that the least bad option over the long term is to artificially inflate the cost of labour. Not only does it condemn the rest of the country to shoulder an unnecessary burden that reduces its productivity, but it's also a wasted opportunity for the subsidised workers to have done something else that was actually wealth-creating.
Having witnessed the social destruction caused by the decline in ship building, the implosion of coal mining, etc, it is easy to see how one might think that you have to shield people from market forces to some degree. But that is to misunderstand why these industrial declines were so painful. They came to crisis points BECAUSE they had been subsidised for so long. Had they been allowed to decline more gradually as they became increasingly uncompetitive, then the workforce would have had time to find new jobs, gain new skills, etc. Indeed it might have even spurred these industries to improve their practices and become genuinely competitive. All that was achieved by shielding these industries from market forces was to make their inevitable decline far, far harder and more abrupt than it need have been.
Although I broadly agree, I also suspect that all the costs are not taken into account in the calculation of whats best for the country/society. Was it really the industries in question that were subsidised for too long, or was the politics (the unions strength and attitude to management, the management attitude to workers, the politicians not facing the problem etc) that made it catastrophic. Germany retained much of their mittlestand and heavy engineering companies, why couldnt the UK? My guess is that Germany just managed better, with a better industrial strategy for starters. Note that the EU is a protectionist bloc, putting sizeable import tariffs on various products, and the Germans have been very happy with the situation. Is there much difference between putting a tariff on imports or subsidising various activities?Subsidising jobs is acceptable for short periods of time to allow the labour market to adjust to a change in demand, but it is a counsel of despair to suggest that the least bad option over the long term is to artificially inflate the cost of labour. Not only does it condemn the rest of the country to shoulder an unnecessary burden that reduces its productivity, but it's also a wasted opportunity for the subsidised workers to have done something else that was actually wealth-creating.
Having witnessed the social destruction caused by the decline in ship building, the implosion of coal mining, etc, it is easy to see how one might think that you have to shield people from market forces to some degree. But that is to misunderstand why these industrial declines were so painful. They came to crisis points BECAUSE they had been subsidised for so long. Had they been allowed to decline more gradually as they became increasingly uncompetitive, then the workforce would have had time to find new jobs, gain new skills, etc. Indeed it might have even spurred these industries to improve their practices and become genuinely competitive. All that was achieved by shielding these industries from market forces was to make their inevitable decline far, far harder and more abrupt than it need have been.
davepoth said:
ATG said:
In your example, who do you think foots the bill? Answer: the UK tax payer. What you're suggesting is that everyone in the UK pays more for the civil engineering project so that one group of workers can be paid more than the global going rate. That just undermines UK productivity. You shouldn't be subsidising people to go to work. If that's the only way the job survives, it simply tells you that the job isn't worth doing. It's destroying value. Those workers need to find other jobs; jobs that people are prepared to pay to be done. We've already gone through the pain. Mining, steel, ship building, car assembly no longer provide millions of jobs in the UK. They haven't done so for decades. And the workforce has adapted to that by finding other types of jobs to do, and we've got pretty low unemployment even after a long period of economic stagnation following the financial crisis. Even if we could turn the clock back, why would we?
A scenario then. We want lots of steel, and we go to the market. Assuming that China aren't dumping, we find that there's a British company offering steel at a reasonable price, more or less in line with the rest of the countries around the world - maybe a little more expensive, but nothing bank breaking. We aren't talking about "It'll cost twice as much - and it will be st" like it was in the 1970s, but a genuinely competitive product. Should the government give some weighting to the fact that a British company is involved?As to restricting the build of UK construction projects to UK workers we just don't have the people we need, nor do we have the ability to train them. http://www.citb.co.uk/news-events/uk-construction-... HS2 is having to build its own training colleges to develop the skill sets they need for construction and maintenance because they have to, not for pork barrel politics, and god knows where they will get the trainers from. Heathrow and Hinkley are doing the same.
Restricting the build of UK construction projects to UK firms would be shooting ourselves the in foot. Balfour Beatty, our biggest UK construction company, has several of it's top ten construction projects in the US. We need our construction companies operating in as many markets as possible to sheild them from the normal construction market cycle here.
Like Brexit, the change in the world economy is coming inexorably and whether you like it or not the only way to survive in it, never mind prosper, is to grab it like Trump grabs pussy and take what you can get. Hiding from it behind walls and barriers will be national suicide.
davepoth said:
Theresa May did this for us today:
I hope nobody doubts her commitment now.
That picture and the video has been all over the news channels, got to give BBC credit they have just had somebody on who explained that they were walking down steps and he was doing the gentlemanly thing.I hope nobody doubts her commitment now.
( something a man of his age would do)
Collectingbrass said:
Like Brexit, the change in the world economy is coming inexorably and whether you like it or not the only way to survive in it, never mind prosper, is to grab it like Trump grabs pussy and take what you can get. Hiding from it behind walls and barriers will be national suicide.
But its the very changes you say need to be embraced that caused brexit.Whether one agrees with brexit or not we have to acknowledge that the previous way was not working for a large marjority of the country
If it was not working for the large majority, then basically it was not working
Carrying on as we were could have led to the kind of sharp wake up call those industries had themselves, on a national / societal level
menousername said:
Collectingbrass said:
Like Brexit, the change in the world economy is coming inexorably and whether you like it or not the only way to survive in it, never mind prosper, is to grab it like Trump grabs pussy and take what you can get. Hiding from it behind walls and barriers will be national suicide.
But its the very changes you say need to be embraced that caused brexit.Whether one agrees with brexit or not we have to acknowledge that the previous way was not working for a large marjority of the country
If it was not working for the large majority, then basically it was not working
Carrying on as we were could have led to the kind of sharp wake up call those industries had themselves, on a national / societal level
PRTVR said:
davepoth said:
Theresa May did this for us today:
I hope nobody doubts her commitment now.
That picture and the video has been all over the news channels, got to give BBC credit they have just had somebody on who explained that they were walking down steps and he was doing the gentlemanly thing.I hope nobody doubts her commitment now.
( something a man of his age would do)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff