Problem with the SNP pap, (and I live up here) is they’re not immune to ridiculous voter friendly spin policy… good examples are free prescriptions and eye tests for all… Now I dont need free stuff and am prepared to pay so that those that cant [pay, get the free stuff (fuck me what an old fashioned socialist I am 
)… and also see the money saved go on something everyone benefits from… like the fucking roads, which are the worst in the UK… but you see despite the SNP freezing council tax (for last 4 years) and so local government have their hands tied, when asked about such infrastructure being shit, they blame…?.. yep Westminster and the nasty English… Its about priorities and their’s are to provide voter friendly quick wins, and use every opportunity to blame Westminster for lack of investment in larger scale projects… and naturally this plays very well up here… so not as principled astehy like to pretend they are… and given they also attract those with more sinister views on nationalism in Scotland, that is something I can not accept.
The company ‘made a loss’. Do you reckon that this means:
A: Daddy Osbourne received no money from this company as it wasn’t making any profit.
B: Daddy Osbourne paid himself a fuckton of money first in a very ‘tax efficient’ way then paid no corporation tax on what was left?
Surely Mr O is not on benefits? How is he surviving?
Fuck me Goaty, cant you make these questions a bit easier… that sure is atough one… will have o give it some real thought.
Yet we all have to tighten our belts etc.
Osborne and Little
The company recorded a pre-tax profit of £722,000 on turnover of £34 million in 2014/5. The highest paid director, possibly Peter Osborne, was paid £684,000.[citation needed] Using the 2014/15 UK income tax calculator reveals this would result in combined income tax and national insurance deductions of £310,838.28.[12]
In 2015 it was revealed by Private Eye that, despite having made a pre-tax profit of £722,000, the company paid no corporation tax for the year 2015 – thereby avoiding a “tax bill” of £179,000.[13][citation needed] The magazine also revealed that the company had not paid any corporation tax since 2008 and had even received a tax credit of £12,000 in the year 2010.[14][citation needed] This was due to the company making losses totaling £9 million between 2009 and 2014, which allow the carry forward of credits for losses against the 2015 corporation tax bill.[15] The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, owns a 15% stake in the company.
We are all in it together.
Lose nearly 2 million per year. Pay no tax.
Each year, for 5 years.
Make 3/4 million. Pay no tax.
What do we think will happen if there is a massive wallpaper bonanza year?
Uhm… I would seriously ask the question: who the fuckity fuck would appoint someone as chancer (sic) of the exchequer who invests in a company that turnsover of 34 mill and only makes a 2.2% net margin? and losses for 5 years in a row? I mean fuck me, does a Chancer not need a little business and economic accumen? A cynic might assume that they are actually making some money… somehow?
Hey,
The banking crisis was incredidbly confusing.
Trailer for the big short it’s beautifully written and explains how the global financial crisis happened 
The script was based on a composite of 2 real life people
Back to austerity. And why not. Not a scam as such, more an ideological position masquerading as necessity. Austerity has been presented as something that just has to be done, much as its bezzie mate, neoliberal economics, is presented as something that works rather than an ideology.
There’s never been any doubt in my mind that the savage cuts to publlic spending made by Cameron and Osborne have been a matter of choice and not of necessity. Had economic circumstances been rosier they’d have done much the same, just less viciously. Their belief in the primacy of the market and a minimal state would always have been there; Osborne’s economicallly illiterate pledge to maintain a current account surplus indicates just that, along with their instinct for political gain over all else.
Old-style liberal economics didn’t work. Neoliberalism doesn’t work either; it never has, it doesn’t now, and it never will. The same goes for the political ideology that accompanies it. The austerity we currently see is just another manifestation of neoliberal economics. It doesn’t work either.
Old-style liberal economics didn’t work. Neoliberalism doesn’t work either; it never has, it doesn’t now, and it never will. The same goes for the political ideology that accompanies it. The austerity we currently see is just another manifestation of neoliberal economics. It doesn’t work either.
What is Neo Liberalism? And explain how you think liberal economics didn’t work please 
What follows is an over-simplification of economic policy over the past 100 years or so.
Liberal economics is generally seen as what existed pre Keynes. An essentially laissez-faire approach, with minimal state intervention barring a cerain degree of macro-economic policy from governments (whether to adhere to the gold standard being an example of such policy). It has no direct connection with political parties, Liberal or otherwise; it was simply the generally accepted and orthodox view of how an economy works, until:
Keynes (and others, but his is the name that has stuck) challenged the view that the only way to run an economy was to simply let things happen. Rather, he took the view that a government could and should intervene to mitigate the worst effects of unbridled capitalism, and to spread the benefits of its better effects. Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’, which pulled the US out of the great depression of the 1930s while many other economies were still struggling, was a prime example of Keynesian economics in action. The Labour government elected in 1945 also followed this general approach and it in turn became the default economic policy in this country, regardless of which party was in government, until:
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher was elected. The economic policy of her government (driven by Keith Joseph among others - Thatcher’s grasp of economics was rudimentary at best) was a return to the market-led, laissez-faire approach that was pursued prior to the rise of Keynesianism. The smaller the state, the less intervention by the gevernment, the better. This economic model was and still is referred to as neoliberalism. It’s essentially a return to old-style liberal economics, but with a profound and scary ideological underpinning. Sadly, all UK governnments since 1979 have adopted a neoliberal approach to economic policy.
On the second point, liberal economics didn’t work for the simple reason that it had the inherent feature of a boom/slump cycle, repeated every seven years (roughly). Economic growth would lead to over-production; this would in turn lead to surplus, leading in turn to falling demand and, inevitably, recession and (at worst) depression. After some time the recession bottoms out, the economy begins to grow, and the cycle kicks off again. In the long term, the economy will always grow, but the effects of recession or depression are massive and horrible.
Right, I’m off to bed…
Milton Friedman and his monetarism was a huge influence on Reagan and then Thatcher in the 80’s.
This was Obama’s biggest mistake in terms of what he said. Yet is basically endorsing the idea of austerity:
In fact this is nonsense. When everyone is tightening their belts, it is time for the the government to spend because otherwise the economy keeps sinking.
Thanks Pap, I’m actually astounded that no-one, not even the Opposition has made much of this.
–
Back to Austerity, I like all the points made and they’ve re-educated me somewhat (not having any economic bent). For me, the simple truth is, if you haven’t got the money you can’t spend it.
Traditionally politics has been Labour spend to get out of trouble (borrowing loads on the way), Conservatives cut back to pay back the money Labour borrowed (borrowing loads on the way).
Surely, as our governement is really run by the civial servants, we should be taking some sort of middle ground. Something that truly helps the poor and needy whilst also ensuring that those that can afford to pay do pay!
Interesting article, but all through it i was wondering if i had missed our media, particularly the guardian, reporting on it, to the point i doubted the article. Has there been much?
I clicked on the linked NYT article because of my doubts and might have found out why i don’t remember this being big news here.
“The actual stimulus spending was very small,” said João Borges de Assunção, a professor at the Católica Lisbon School of Business and Economics. “But the country’s mind-set became completely different, and from an economic perspective, that’s more impactful than the actual change in policy.”
Our media’s job seems to be keeping our mindset negative and fearful. This sort of thing really wouldn’t be popular with the few and their enablers.