Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Disable ads temporarily
Remaining character count: 4000
[ + ]
Image or Video File:
Shortcuts: "C" opens comments. "R" refreshes comments.
Record voice message?
Click to start recording.
Enter Captcha Code:
Scroll to comment?
Back to the content 'England Logic'
Yeah but to be fair that's because the Government at the time were basically running like an autocratic state, con
ing everything from industry to agriculture. They didn't care about being competitive on the stock market or making profit. It was 100% war effort, and no matter what troubles the population was going through they bit down hard and pushed on. But crime was through the roof, stealing from bombed houses, making counterfeit ration tickets and making bootleg liquor.
However after WW2 the government introduced a policy of Laissez Faire, meaning that the government no longer could interfere with business policy or prices. So now, all businesses are out to make profit and out do each other. But that also means that the country gets less money because they outsource their companies to tax havens, example in point is Starbucks Coffee.
So yes, England *was* more efficient in WW2 but that was because the government had full control over the countries infrastructure and resources. Now it's all in the hands of businesses and underfunded councils.
Plus there are more people to look after since there aren't millions of people fighting in Europe, but are back home needing housing, food, heating, medicine and transport.
I hope this helps put things into perspective for people. There will be a test on the differences faced by Cameron/Glegg government and Churchill/Atlee government next week. Class dismissed.
has deleted their comment
Dammit I just read all of that.
Oh boy... your lack of basic economic theory saddens me deeply. Autocratic governments are never economically efficient, just look at North Korea or the USSR for example. The government took control of the economy during war time to divert all nesscary resources to the war effort. This doesn't equate to efficiency as those resources could have been sold some where else for a greater profit. It's profit seeking behaviour that encourages efficiency, as those that are wasteful drop out of the market. Outsourcung jobs saves the company money making it more profitbale, the only losers are lowskilled workers who would have to retrain to do something else (and annoyance for customers in telemarketing cases lol).The spill over effect aloows society to benefit from those gains. In the case of starbucks they do pay all their main taxes, it was a tax on the profits they were making, that they avoided. By no means am i defending them, as it gave them a unfair advantage over the average coffeee shop, just pointing out that your arguments are wrong good sir.
You're not arguing that an autocratic state is inefficient, you're arguing that their intentions are what determines the efficiency. However, even in your examples of North Korea and the USSR their economy did boom when all legislative and economic power was in control of the government. Of course then those few at the top decided they preferred money and power over patriotism to their country. Profit seeking behaviour doesn't encourage efficiency, in many cases it undermines it, as those who seek it look for short cuts and cheaper ways to do things to increase their profit margins.
And lest we forget Nazi Germany saw the greatest economic recovery in recorded history because Hitler fused the roll of Chancellor and President into one seat of power the "Führer" he then took a country completely crippled by the reparation payments it had been forced to pay to the "allied countries" due to the loss of WW1 and the laws set out in the treaty of Versailles. Hitler was able to take Germany, the then weakest economic power in Europe and in a few years turn it into a war machine that nearly succeeded in conquering all of Europe and could practically, if not for some blunders in Hitler's strategy towards the end, have taken over the planet. We are also seeing similar, if not as fast, growth in China, which although technically still calling themselves a "Communist State" still have leaders in power.
Outsourcing saves a company money because they don't have to worry about tax for just being in a certain country. The taxes being what runs a countries economy. Also it means the workers aren't in the country so there are no wages to be taxed, the raw materials in the case of manufacturing aren't charged import tax and the finished product aren't charged export tax. Millions upon millions of lost tax revenue, *before* the tax on profits made in the country.
I don't believe my arguments are wrong, I believe you may have mis-interpreted certain points and got hung up on them.
This guy. I like this guy.
And his username.
We also shouldn't forget Churchill was voted out of office within months of the war ending.
and was then re-elected in 1951..
And this is why I shouldn't be a know-it-all based on what I learned in history class.
.gif related: it's how dumb I look.
Back to the content 'England Logic'