Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should we protect jobs at the cost of higher inflation and/or taxes? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should government save UK jobs via market intervention?
    Yes - Subsidies, import tarrifs, nationalisation of industry
    20.00%
    No - The free market rules
    70.00%
    Don't know/want to see result.
    10.00%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    In recent days we've all heard about the commodity collapse causing the steel industry in the UK damage at the cost of thousands of jobs. As a response to this a number of lefties have (other than trying to blame Thatcher) suggested that government should save the UK steel industry.

    The question i'd like to ask TSR (especially since we've all grown up in a service economy with minimal union ties) is whether you think that government should save non-service sector industries (steel, Grangemouth chemicals ect..) either via slapping huge import tarrifs on foreign competition (the result of this is that business would pick British but at the cost of higher inflation than would have otherwise been the case) or via subsidies paid for by higher taxes (or deeper spending cuts). The alternative of course is to let market forces play out.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In recent days we've all heard about the commodity collapse causing the steel industry in the UK damage at the cost of thousands of jobs. As a response to this a number of lefties have (other than trying to blame Thatcher) suggested that government should save the UK steel industry.

    The question i'd like to ask TSR (especially since we've all grown up in a service economy with minimal union ties) is whether you think that government should save non-service sector industries (steel, Grangemouth chemicals ect..) either via slapping huge import tarrifs on foreign competition (the result of this is that business would pick British but at the cost of higher inflation than would have otherwise been the case) or via subsidies paid for by higher taxes (or deeper spending cuts). The alternative of course is to let market forces play out.
    We cannot afford to protect anything any more. Everything is open for sale.

    I welcome our new Chinese emperors on their state visit. Ni hao to all!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    We cannot afford to protect anything any more. Everything is open for sale.

    I welcome our new Chinese emperors on their state visit. Ni hao to all!
    Very quick reply.

    I despise subsidies and would generally lean to the free market however i'd probably separate ownership and control (and cap foreign control at say 40%) so that somebody in India in the case of Tata is not making these decisions.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    We cannot afford to protect anything any more. Everything is open for sale.

    I welcome our new Chinese emperors on their state visit. Ni hao to all!
    Every public asset is being auctioned off at a fraction of market value. Criminal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stochasticking)
    Every public asset is being auctioned off at a fraction of market value. Criminal.
    In this case it's been private a few decades now and is suffering because steel supply globally is pretty high pushing down the price.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think part of it is that there are vested interests in this country that have money in Chinese businesses that are better investments. So Finance trumps jobs for ordinary people. That's why this happens. Any other reasoning is secondary.

    We have just bought a load of steel from China for the reason it is supposed to be cheaper. But that ignores the effect fo that steel works factory being closed down. We are goign to have a higher welfare bill in that area now plus all the knock on effects to the local economy which will impact tax revunue.

    Basically the interests of a wealthy few are put before the interests of the economy and normal workers in Britain. The only time when the interests of the economy as a whole or British workers get but at front and centre is when it coincidentally helps the wealthy few.

    Also why are Tories aloud to get away with being so cosy with communists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I think part of it is that there are vested interests in this country that have money in Chinese businesses that are better investments. So Finance trumps jobs for ordinary people. That's why this happens. Any other reasoning is secondary.

    We have just bought a load of steel from China for the reason it is supposed to be cheaper. But that ignores the effect fo that steel works factory being closed down. We are goign to have a higher welfare bill in that area now plus all the knock on effects to the local economy which will impact tax revunue.

    Basically the interests of a wealthy few are put before the interests of the economy and normal workers in Britain. The only time when the interests of the economy as a whole or British workers get but at front and centre is when it coincidentally helps the wealthy few.

    Also why are Tories aloud to get away with being so cosy with communists.
    Chinese are not communists and have not been since the late 70's.

    Also, lets steer clear of turning this into a Tory hate thread. I don't tolerate deviation from the thesis and side topics in my threads.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In this case it's been private a few decades now and is suffering because steel supply globally is pretty high pushing down the price.
    I meant in general, selling of RBS, LLoyd's and Royal Mail shares below market value etc.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stochasticking)
    Every public asset is being auctioned off at a fraction of market value. Criminal.
    It is but who is going to stop them?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    It is but who is going to stop them?
    :dontknow: Batman!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In recent days we've all heard about the commodity collapse causing the steel industry in the UK damage at the cost of thousands of jobs. As a response to this a number of lefties have (other than trying to blame Thatcher) suggested that government should save the UK steel industry.

    The question i'd like to ask TSR (especially since we've all grown up in a service economy with minimal union ties) is whether you think that government should save non-service sector industries (steel, Grangemouth chemicals ect..) either via slapping huge import tarrifs on foreign competition (the result of this is that business would pick British but at the cost of higher inflation than would have otherwise been the case) or via subsidies paid for by higher taxes (or deeper spending cuts). The alternative of course is to let market forces play out.
    A nice way to limit Chinese (and other) competition without governmental support of national industries would be to put an import ban on goods manufactured by children. That would force these countries to employ adults.

    There would still be competition, but it would be fairer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    A nice way to limit Chinese (and other) competition without governmental support of national industries would be to put an import ban on goods manufactured by children. That would force these countries to employ adults.

    There would still be competition, but it would be fairer.
    We're probably such a small export market in percentage terms (less than 10%) that they would'nt so it would just be an import ban.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You do what you can. Just nothing more than that which would be protect some jobs, but not others.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    We're probably such a small export market in percentage terms (less than 10%) that they would'nt so it would just be an import ban.
    It should be done at the EU level.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    It should be done at the EU level.
    That's possible and not a bad idea provided we remain.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In recent days we've all heard about the commodity collapse causing the steel industry in the UK damage at the cost of thousands of jobs. As a response to this a number of lefties have (other than trying to blame Thatcher) suggested that government should save the UK steel industry.

    The question i'd like to ask TSR (especially since we've all grown up in a service economy with minimal union ties) is whether you think that government should save non-service sector industries (steel, Grangemouth chemicals ect..) either via slapping huge import tarrifs on foreign competition (the result of this is that business would pick British but at the cost of higher inflation than would have otherwise been the case) or via subsidies paid for by higher taxes (or deeper spending cuts). The alternative of course is to let market forces play out.
    Sorry to be annoying but could you explain this in more detail please
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Sorry to be annoying but could you explain this in more detail please
    Global steel prices have fallen making UK steel exports loss making. Tata (the private firm that owns what was British Steel) is cutting a large segment of its British workforce.

    This thread questions whether government should be intervening or whether we should accept market forces and respond to this price signal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In recent days we've all heard about the commodity collapse causing the steel industry in the UK damage at the cost of thousands of jobs. As a response to this a number of lefties have (other than trying to blame Thatcher) suggested that government should save the UK steel industry.

    The question i'd like to ask TSR (especially since we've all grown up in a service economy with minimal union ties) is whether you think that government should save non-service sector industries (steel, Grangemouth chemicals ect..) either via slapping huge import tarrifs on foreign competition (the result of this is that business would pick British but at the cost of higher inflation than would have otherwise been the case) or via subsidies paid for by higher taxes (or deeper spending cuts). The alternative of course is to let market forces play out.
    You cannot let whole British industries die out due to the short term impact of unusually high supplies of Chinese steel. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the North East, where unemployment is already very high. Within a few years the cheap, poor quality Chinese steel will no longer circulate the economy and supply British steel would be a profitable opportunity, only we no longer have the means to as the furnaces will have gone cold.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In recent days we've all heard about the commodity collapse causing the steel industry in the UK damage at the cost of thousands of jobs. As a response to this a number of lefties have (other than trying to blame Thatcher) suggested that government should save the UK steel industry.

    The question i'd like to ask TSR (especially since we've all grown up in a service economy with minimal union ties) is whether you think that government should save non-service sector industries (steel, Grangemouth chemicals ect..) either via slapping huge import tarrifs on foreign competition (the result of this is that business would pick British but at the cost of higher inflation than would have otherwise been the case) or via subsidies paid for by higher taxes (or deeper spending cuts). The alternative of course is to let market forces play out.
    Generally I think we should allow market forces to play out, but this also has to include the banks too. I don't think that some industries should be at the mercy of capitalism whilst others can be immune from it, at a cost to the taxpayer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another point to add it is my belief that if we see an increase in consumption/investment in the economy we won't see high levels of inflation. It was only two years ago that our real GDP surpassed the 2008 pre reccesssion peak so we have plenty spare capacity (further shown by current stable deflation/no inflation this year). To increase GDP without unwanted levels of inflation is achieveable and the current Tory austerity program is damaging to our economy. Equally though labour should have been running a budget surplus in the 2000s whilst the economy was in good shape so that austerity now could have been avoided.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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