All teachers are biased and try to convert to left wing socialists

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Still not answering my points, ignoring my response and continuing with your irrelevant rhetoric.
    Most Socialists live in a fantasy world, they often hate Capitalism because they view it as exploitive, and they think money just pops out of thin air, no it's Capitalism that causes wealth, say you have £1 and you keep putting into the same vending machine over and over again, you will be stuck with that £1 until the machine swallows it and keeps it, then the £1 is gone, for good, however, say you invest that £1 on a stock market, you might not get much back, but you will still be getting twice or thrice the amount of money you put in, that there is a very simplified analogy of the difference between Socialism and Capitalism, Socialism is basically paying your taxes to get "free" stuff from the government, i.e. education and health care, in theory at least, your money basically goes round and round in circles until it's gone, whilst Capitalism is investing your money in a profitable business or idea, and getting much more back from your investment, that's why Capitalism generates wealth whilst Socialism leeches it, Socialism couldn't exist without Capitalism, because it needs Capitalism to generate the wealth it needs to survive on, it's an economic parasite, that's all, many, if not most, of the most economically powerful nations on earth don't have Socialist policies.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    It sounds great in theory but the problem is if you push them too hard they'll just up sticks and operate from somewhere else taking thousands of jobs with them.

    This problem of multinationals avoiding tax needs international consensus to solve, which will never happen as we're all competitors. There's no incentive for countries to help each other collect taxes when they can steal business from each other instead(and subsequently boost their own economies as a result).
    I understand and that is a reason high taxes don't work. Mc Govern can have a look at Hollande's 75% tax on millionaires it went horribly wrong
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    It sounds great in theory but the problem is if you push them too hard they'll just up sticks and operate from somewhere else taking thousands of jobs with them.

    This problem of multinationals avoiding tax needs international consensus to solve, which will never happen as we're all competitors. There's no incentive for countries to help each other collect taxes when they can steal business from each other instead(and subsequently boost their own economies as a result).
    Its a known fact that high taxes don't work. Look at Hollande's tax and this an article by the guardian , a left wing paper!
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rcent-supertax
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    You cannot improve an economy by causing huge unemployment. She did not help GDP, her economic policy caused a decline in GDP growth over her last 4 years back down to nearly -1% GDP growth, undoing all her efforts.

    Its a known fact that high taxes don't work. Look at Hollande's tax and this an article by the guardian , a left wing paper!
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rcent-supertax
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    No privatization doesnt really work. give one exmple that has benefited the public.
    When thatcher privatised electricity and gas they became more efficient. The money was also used to pay off Britain's debt
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    Most Socialists live in a fantasy world, they often hate Capitalism because they view it as exploitive, and they think money just pops out of thin air, no it's Capitalism that causes wealth, say you have £1 and you keep putting into the same vending machine over and over again, you will be stuck with that £1 until the machine swallows it and keeps it, then the £1 is gone, for good, however, say you invest that £1 on a stock market, you might not get much back, but you will still be getting twice or thrice the amount of money you put in, that there is a very simplified analogy of the difference between Socialism and Capitalism, Socialism is basically paying your taxes to get "free" stuff from the government, i.e. education and health care, in theory at least, your money basically goes round and round in circles until it's gone, whilst Capitalism is investing your money in a profitable business or idea, and getting much more back from your investment, that's why Capitalism generates wealth whilst Socialism leeches it, Socialism couldn't exist without Capitalism, because it needs Capitalism to generate the wealth it needs to survive on, it's an economic parasite, that's all, many, if not most, of the most economically powerful nations on earth don't have Socialist policies.
    How can anyone be this dumb.
    cranbrook_aspie Aph cBay
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    Mc govern and you said a flat tax wouldn't work . it would work of the big corporations pad their fair share of tax !!!!!
    There is no point arguing with you if you are going to ignore clear coherent arguments and come back with the contents of a DUP voter's facebook page.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    "Again, Keynesianism is a set of theories that ranges across the left and right spectrum"
    Ok so you just admitted that it wasn't socialist policy , thankyou , it was to the right of clement atlee, and the tory government from 1951 to 1964 was much better . They cut taxes( RIGHT WING) and reduced public spending(right wing) , this is not neoclassical economics but it is slightly right of center.
    Classical economics argues that one should cut taxes when there are budget surpluses, and cut spending – or, less likely, increase taxes – during economic downturns. Keynesian economists believe that adding to profits and incomes during boom cycles through tax cuts, and removing income and profits from the economy through cuts in spending during downturns, tends to exacerbate the negative effects of the business cycle.

    You clearly have no knowledge of economics as you cannot put together a coherent statement.

    If you knew anything about history or economics it is widely known that the Conservative governments of 1951-64 was a failure economically.

    In the Industrial Charter Butler and his colleagues accepted that Britain should be a mixed economy containing private and state directed industry. This charter also accepted that trade unions would have a legitimate role to play. Butler acknowledged that the deflationary policies of Labour before 1951 were successful.

    Britain withdrew from the Suez due to the International run of sterling. This run threatened to destroy Britain's economy as the US showed no willingness to bail Britain out. It is during this ten year period after the war that the USD$ overtook sterling in being the primary reserve currency of the world.
    The amount of money spent led to Macmillan admitting that the Suez affair had increased Britain's debt by in 1957.

    The top 10% pay 59% of tax , this is unfair , a flat tax would be fair as everyone pays a certain percentage , the NHS only benefits the poorest and its inefficient anyway. The top 10 % would still pay the most tax is it were a flat system. The average person still has to pay for glasses and dentistry in the UK. We could privatize more stuff and private companies are more efficient than state run companies , perhaps , invite the TSR capitalist professional to this debate so its fair as he'll have better facts than me. Your a political ambassador so get a political ambassador to argue with
    Yes a political ambassador would have better facts that you and wouldn't broadly and incorrectly claim that all privatised industries are more efficient that nationalised industries. The NHS is not inefficient. The Irish private health service is inefficient and has a crisis where people are dying on trolleys waiting for treatment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    Most Socialists live in a fantasy world, they often hate Capitalism because they view it as exploitive, and they think money just pops out of thin air, no it's Capitalism that causes wealth, say you have £1 and you keep putting into the same vending machine over and over again, you will be stuck with that £1 until the machine swallows it and keeps it, then the £1 is gone, for good, however, say you invest that £1 on a stock market, you might not get much back, but you will still be getting twice or thrice the amount of money you put in, that there is a very simplified analogy of the difference between Socialism and Capitalism, Socialism is basically paying your taxes to get "free" stuff from the government, i.e. education and health care, in theory at least, your money basically goes round and round in circles until it's gone, whilst Capitalism is investing your money in a profitable business or idea, and getting much more back from your investment, that's why Capitalism generates wealth whilst Socialism leeches it, Socialism couldn't exist without Capitalism, because it needs Capitalism to generate the wealth it needs to survive on, it's an economic parasite, that's all, many, if not most, of the most economically powerful nations on earth don't have Socialist policies.
    There is nothing about socialism that prevents the operation of a profitable business.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Classical economics argues that one should cut taxes when there are budget surpluses, and cut spending – or, less likely, increase taxes – during economic downturns. Keynesian economists believe that adding to profits and incomes during boom cycles through tax cuts, and removing income and profits from the economy through cuts in spending during downturns, tends to exacerbate the negative effects of the business cycle.

    You clearly have no knowledge of economics as you cannot put together a coherent statement.

    If you knew anything about history or economics it is widely known that the Conservative governments of 1951-64 was a failure economically.

    In the Industrial Charter Butler and his colleagues accepted that Britain should be a mixed economy containing private and state directed industry. This charter also accepted that trade unions would have a legitimate role to play. Butler acknowledged that the deflationary policies of Labour before 1951 were successful.

    Britain withdrew from the Suez due to the International run of sterling. This run threatened to destroy Britain's economy as the US showed no willingness to bail Britain out. It is during this ten year period after the war that the USD$ overtook sterling in being the primary reserve currency of the world.
    The amount of money spent led to Macmillan admitting that the Suez affair had increased Britain's debt by in 1957.



    Yes a political ambassador would have better facts that you and wouldn't broadly and incorrectly claim that all privatised industries are more efficient that nationalised industries. The NHS is not inefficient. The Irish private health service is inefficient and has a crisis where people are dying on trolleys waiting for treatment.
    Oh really , Haha , that just proves how stupid you are , read the figures. First you say they followed Keynesian policy and thats why it was a success , now say it was a failure , even though they reduced national debt more than clement atlee. A big hole in your flaw,



    Where on this graph does debt increase?Looks like a failure alright , GDP per capita also increased and you claimed that GDP went down under thatcher even though it increased .
    https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukgdp/result.php
    You CANNOT read figures .
    Stop embarrassing yourself as I simply don't have the time to keep showing the same figures and repeating myself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    Oh really , Haha , that just proves how stupid you are , read the figures. First you say they followed Keynesian policy and thats why it was a success , now say it was a failure , even though they reduced national debt more than clement atlee. A big hole in your flaw,



    Where on this graph does debt increase?Looks like a failure alright , GDP per capita also increased and you claimed that GDP went down under thatcher even though it increased .
    https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukgdp/result.php
    You CANNOT read figures .
    Stop embarrassing yourself as I simply don't have the time to keep showing the same figures and repeating myself.


    Thatcher
    Thatcher did not improve the UK economy because she caused unemployment to reach Depression-era levels, rapidly rising to over three million out of work in 1983.

    Inflation was running at more than 25% at times in the 1970s, so a key tenet of the incoming Conservative government was to bring it down. However tough budgetary measures meant that growth suffered in Mrs Thatcher's first term, with a deep recession in the early 1980s.

    In November 1979, the government raised interest rates to 17% in order to tackle inflation. This harmed manufacturing industry and exports.

    Tories 1951-64
    You clearly have no knowledge of the failure of the Conservatives in this period.
    The Conservative economic policies of 1951-64 were accused of being too concerned with macro policies that supported rapid growth but failed to develop policies that directly improved economic efficiency and looked to developing the economy in the long term, with adverse effects on international competitiveness, leading to serious problems in terms of trade and investment.

    There was an initial rise in consumer goods as previously mentioned however there were more consumer goods being made than actually being bought in Britain, and a share of world trade that had declined in the post war era. This was due to other countries being starved financially from the war and couldn't afford to export goods. Ironically though, those 'starved' countries achieved better per capita GDP than Britain. It ended up with Britain losing money abroad due to failed exports.

    Stop go was the main economic policy of the conservative government, a loosely based Keynesian economic theory. When the policy began in 1951 the balance of payments was at -£700 million. As a long term policy it had negative effects compared to the rest of Europe's economies. By the end of 1964, the stop-go policy resulted in a net deficit in the balance of payments of -£800 million.

    The conservative policy bought about a state of stagflation. Economically, it was severely behind the rest of Europe. Britain's GDP growth rate 1951-1964 was 2.3%. France's was 4.3%, West Germany 5.1% and Italy 5.6%.

    Stop-go staggered growth, causing a severe lag in comparative growth. Therefore, it must be concluded that, economically, these 13 years were wasted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    "Again, Keynesianism is a set of theories that ranges across the left and right spectrum"
    Ok so you just admitted that it wasn't socialist policy , thankyou , it was to the right of clement atlee, and the tory government from 1951 to 1964 was much better . They cut taxes( RIGHT WING) and reduced public spending(right wing) , this is not neoclassical economics but it is slightly right of center.

    The top 10% pay 59% of tax , this is unfair , a flat tax would be fair as everyone pays a certain percentage , the NHS only benefits the poorest and its inefficient anyway. The top 10 % would still pay the most tax is it were a flat system. The average person still has to pay for glasses and dentistry in the UK. We could privatize more stuff and private companies are more efficient than state run companies , perhaps , invite the TSR capitalist professional to this debate so its fair as he'll have better facts than me. Your a political ambassador so get a political ambassador to argue with
    Everyone pays “a certain percentage”. Also if the rich still pay the most what’s the point of switching?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Everyone pays “a certain percentage”. Also if the rich still pay the most what’s the point of switching?
    They pay less is the point , i.e we implement a flat rate of 25%. Anyway Im tired of debating, lets wait till 2020 and see whats left your party!
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)


    Thatcher
    Thatcher did not improve the UK economy because she caused unemployment to reach Depression-era levels, rapidly rising to over three million out of work in 1983.

    Inflation was running at more than 25% at times in the 1970s, so a key tenet of the incoming Conservative government was to bring it down. However tough budgetary measures meant that growth suffered in Mrs Thatcher's first term, with a deep recession in the early 1980s.

    In November 1979, the government raised interest rates to 17% in order to tackle inflation. This harmed manufacturing industry and exports.

    Tories 1951-64
    You clearly have no knowledge of the failure of the Conservatives in this period.
    The Conservative economic policies of 1951-64 were accused of being too concerned with macro policies that supported rapid growth but failed to develop policies that directly improved economic efficiency and looked to developing the economy in the long term, with adverse effects on international competitiveness, leading to serious problems in terms of trade and investment.

    There was an initial rise in consumer goods as previously mentioned however there were more consumer goods being made than actually being bought in Britain, and a share of world trade that had declined in the post war era. This was due to other countries being starved financially from the war and couldn't afford to export goods. Ironically though, those 'starved' countries achieved better per capita GDP than Britain. It ended up with Britain losing money abroad due to failed exports.

    Stop go was the main economic policy of the conservative government, a loosely based Keynesian economic theory. When the policy began in 1951 the balance of payments was at -£700 million. As a long term policy it had negative effects compared to the rest of Europe's economies. By the end of 1964, the stop-go policy resulted in a net deficit in the balance of payments of -£800 million.

    The conservative policy bought about a state of stagflation. Economically, it was severely behind the rest of Europe. Britain's GDP growth rate 1951-1964 was 2.3%. France's was 4.3%, West Germany 5.1% and Italy 5.6%.

    Stop-go staggered growth, causing a severe lag in comparative growth. Therefore, it must be concluded that, economically, these 13 years were wasted.
    Still repeating myself

    The debt fell as CLEARLY SHOWN HERE. more and thats MORE than clement atlee. You are getting your biased information from left wing . site The neutral facts are GDP rose more than 2% , https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukgdp/result.php
    So stop lying to yourself. Raising interest rates was the best way to reduce inflation and it WORKED. Unfortunately there had to be a short term price to pay. It was labour who had got inflation that high , we simply cleaned your mess up in a ruthless way. Thatcher got elected THREE times with a majority and then major won. That was four times in a row , the people obviously taught they had done a good job. You just copy and paste your information from stupid socialist site, haha , you amuse me. Growth did suffer originally but in the long term economic growth was gained.https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukgdp/result.php Short term suffering for the longer term gain. Labour would have kept inflation the same. It a well known fact that Britain has and always will have a balance of payments deficit . Your delusional. This is the end of the argument as I no longer see any point of debating. Please don't reply and go give your socialist propaganda to people who want it. The figures speak for themselves and so will time and the voters in 2020. Peace.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    Still repeating myself

    The debt fell as CLEARLY SHOWN HERE. more and thats MORE than clement atlee. You are getting your biased information from left wing . site The neutral facts are GDP rose more than 2% , https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukgdp/result.php
    So stop lying to yourself. Raising interest rates was the best way to reduce inflation and it WORKED. Unfortunately there had to be a short term price to pay. It was labour who had got inflation that high , we simply cleaned your mess up in a ruthless way. Thatcher got elected THREE times with a majority and then major won. That was four times in a row , the people obviously taught they had done a good job. You just copy and paste your information from stupid socialist site, haha , you amuse me. Growth did suffer originally but in the long term economic growth was gained.https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukgdp/result.php Short term suffering for the longer term gain. Labour would have kept inflation the same. It a well known fact that Britain has and always will have a balance of payments deficit . Your delusional. This is the end of the argument as I no longer see any point of debating. Please don't reply and go give your socialist propaganda to people who want it. The figures speak for themselves and so will time and the voters in 2020. Peace.
    Propaganda no, you must be a complete idiot if you assume that my information is from a left-wing site and therefore biased when in fact it is from a British Politics degree.

    Again, you've made no valid points, and your shambling wreck of an argument consists of unsubstantiated statements pulled off some right-wing Facebook page and impetuously-googled graphs.

    Saying that they were elected continually just proves the power of propaganda and of the power of stupid people in large groups.

    Stop go was the main economic policy of the conservative government, a loosely based Keynesian economic theory. When the policy began in 1951 the balance of payments was at -£700 million. As a long term policy it had negative effects compared to the rest of Europe's economies. By the end of 1964, the stop-go policy resulted in a net deficit in the balance of payments of -£800 million.

    The conservative policy bought about a state of stagflation. Economically, it was severely behind the rest of Europe. Britain's GDP growth rate 1951-1964 was 2.3%. France's was 4.3%, West Germany 5.1% and Italy 5.6%.

    Stop-go staggered growth, causing a severe lag in comparative growth. Therefore, it must be concluded that, economically, these 13 years were wasted.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Propaganda no, you must be a complete idiot if you assume that my information is from a left-wing site and therefore biased when in fact it is from a British Politics degree.

    Again, you've made no valid points, and your shambling wreck of an argument consists of unsubstantiated statements pulled off some right-wing Facebook page and impetuously-googled graphs.

    Saying that they were elected continually just proves the power of propaganda and of the power of stupid people in large groups.

    Stop go was the main economic policy of the conservative government, a loosely based Keynesian economic theory. When the policy began in 1951 the balance of payments was at -£700 million. As a long term policy it had negative effects compared to the rest of Europe's economies. By the end of 1964, the stop-go policy resulted in a net deficit in the balance of payments of -£800 million.

    The conservative policy bought about a state of stagflation. Economically, it was severely behind the rest of Europe. Britain's GDP growth rate 1951-1964 was 2.3%. France's was 4.3%, West Germany 5.1% and Italy 5.6%.

    Stop-go staggered growth, causing a severe lag in comparative growth. Therefore, it must be concluded that, economically, these 13 years were wasted.
    Your deluded , my argument hasn't been a shambling wreck , again your facts are WRONG. National debt fell under the tory government. . In clement atlee's 6 years gdp rose by 10% during all the years , do the maths and thats BELOW 2% a year. The tories first 6 year betwen 1951 and 1957 , GDP rose 20% this is around 3.3% a year. In the whole 13 years GDP rose by 54.9%. Simple maths 54.9/13=4.22% a year. Better then clement Atlee.
    https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukgdp/result.php
    Your arguments are shambling wrecks as you can't do maths and yet again you illustarte you get your information from a biased source whereas my calculation are done from a neutral source. Visit the link and see for yourself.
    Please just end this debate as I have said I am repeating myself, look at the facts , there is no need to reply again. Go try win some elections and the best of luck
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Propaganda no, you must be a complete idiot if you assume that my information is from a left-wing site and therefore biased when in fact it is from a British Politics degree.

    Again, you've made no valid points, and your shambling wreck of an argument consists of unsubstantiated statements pulled off some right-wing Facebook page and impetuously-googled graphs.

    Saying that they were elected continually just proves the power of propaganda and of the power of stupid people in large groups.

    Stop go was the main economic policy of the conservative government, a loosely based Keynesian economic theory. When the policy began in 1951 the balance of payments was at -£700 million. As a long term policy it had negative effects compared to the rest of Europe's economies. By the end of 1964, the stop-go policy resulted in a net deficit in the balance of payments of -£800 million.

    The conservative policy bought about a state of stagflation. Economically, it was severely behind the rest of Europe. Britain's GDP growth rate 1951-1964 was 2.3%. France's was 4.3%, West Germany 5.1% and Italy 5.6%.

    Stop-go staggered growth, causing a severe lag in comparative growth. Therefore, it must be concluded that, economically, these 13 years were wasted.
    With the economy growing, albeit slowly, and the high living standards maintained, the public were not inclined to vote against Conservative leadership as the public are more receptive to economic success rather than political advantage. Therefore the continuous economic growth and improvement to standard of living between 1951 and 1964 is why voters voted for the Conservatives and this is the most important reason for their dominance during this period.
    there is no need to reply again. Go try win some elections and the best of luck.
    Keynesian economic theory worked 50 years ago , doesn't mean it will work today , economic times have changed, Just because neo classical economics hasn't worked ( at least so you think so`) doesn't mean it won't work in the future.
    If you 'know' you are right then stop this debate as its pointless and go conquer the electorate in the upcoming years
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    With the economy growing, albeit slowly, and the high living standards maintained, the public were not inclined to vote against Conservative leadership as the public are more receptive to economic success rather than political advantage. Therefore the continuous economic growth and improvement to standard of living between 1951 and 1964 is why voters voted for the Conservatives and this is the most important reason for their dominance during this period.
    there is no need to reply again. Go try win some elections and the best of luck.
    Keynesian economic theory worked 50 years ago , doesn't mean it will work today , economic times have changed, Just because neo classical economics hasn't worked ( at least so you think so`) doesn't mean it won't work in the future.
    If you 'know' you are right then stop this debate as its pointless and go conquer the electorate in the upcoming years
    Keynesian economics has always worked, except in the 70s where Keynesianism was pursued incorrectly; neoclassical economics is proved not to work. If you sit there during a crash and recession waiting for the economy to right itself without any government intervention it will only become a depression. This was proved in America's economic policy during the Great Depression, Germany's unknowing use of Keynesian policy during this, and Europe's economic policy during the Great Recession. Any economist even at A Level knows this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    Your deluded , my argument hasn't been a shambling wreck , again your facts are WRONG. National debt fell under the tory government. . In clement atlee's 6 years gdp rose by 10% during all the years , do the maths and thats BELOW 2% a year. The tories first 6 year betwen 1951 and 1957 , GDP rose 20% this is around 3.3% a year. In the whole 13 years GDP rose by 54.9%. Simple maths 54.9/13=4.22% a year. Better then clement Atlee.
    https://measuringworth.com/datasets/ukgdp/result.php
    Your arguments are shambling wrecks as you can't do maths and yet again you illustarte you get your information from a biased source whereas my calculation are done from a neutral source. Visit the link and see for yourself.
    Please just end this debate as I have said I am repeating myself, look at the facts , there is no need to reply again. Go try win some elections and the best of luck
    Oh since you've copied from an A-Level essay paper, let's also copy from it:

    Some historians such as Correlli Barnett may argue that the economy was not thriving as the British GDP growth rate remained at 2.3, which was low in comparison to West Germany ‟s growth of 5.1 and Italy‟s of 5.6.

    Full employment came as a result of building for new welfare services and investment in nationalised industries (oh yeah, socialist ideals!). They also pursued other socialist policies like looser immigration: To get workers to take the lowest paid jobs they were brought in from India, West Indies etc The ‘Macmillan Boom’ attracted 56,000 immigrants (1960) 1961 – 136,000 more 1964 a million ‘coloured’ immigrants in Great Britain.

    Economic screwup and coverup - Balance of Payments
    • Deficits caused by Great Britain not earning enough from exports to pay for imports
    • The problems of inflation and deficits was tackled by
    • Credit squeezes – higher interest rates to make borrowing more expensive and so reduce demand
    • Hire Purchase regulations changed to make people repay debt in a shorter time
    • Hire Purchase tax to increase prices and reduce demand
    • Macmillan went on to reduce interest rates, ease Hire Purchase regulations and have a budget deficit allowing government spending to rise without extra tax to pay for it - covering it up.

    1960-3
    • Balance of payments deficit continued
    • Inflation made Great Britain goods more expensive so that more foreign manufactured goods were imported
    • Exporters found things difficult
    • Trade Unions claimed right to demand ever higher wages
    • National output slowed
    • Foreign rivals produced at a higher rate because -
    • Investment better planned and larger than Great Britain’s
    • Their workers produced more goods, more cheaply and for higher wages
    • European states hadn’t developed same welfare system as Great Britain
    • Their system was paid for by payments made by workers and employers who had to devise labour saving methods so they paid less into the welfare fund
    • Also kept more of their pay because income tax was lower

    And oh, wait, what did they do? Attempt to join your beloved EEC (EU).

    And then, the Government cut spending after the wage and credit squeeze which caused a rise in unemployment of 0.9 million people. Tories lost by-elections 1962-3 as a result and then believed Wilson's promise to 'get the country back on track' in 1964, getting Labour back into government.

    You've previously said "I'm an A* Economics student", which you are clearly not. Anyone who has studied economics or British history would know that the Conservative governments of 1951-64 were '13 wasted years', as the saying goes.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Keynesian economics has always worked, except in the 70s where Keynesianism was pursued incorrectly; neoclassical economics is proved not to work. If you sit there during a crash and recession waiting for the economy to right itself without any government intervention it will only become a depression. This was proved in America's economic policy during the Great Depression, Germany's unknowing use of Keynesian policy during this, and Europe's economic policy during the Great Recession. Any economist even at A Level knows this.
    Yep an A level economists knows that times have changed , what worked 50 years , may not work today( it may) . I consider this conversation over , lets go our separate ways
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: January 2, 2017
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
What is your favourite day of the week
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.