- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Why “industrial strategy” is back
Excerpt:
I suspect that Mrs May will prove to be a very effective PM, despite Brexit. (She was against it, like any level-headed Brit should have been. Anyway, good-bye GREAT Britain!)
And there is a catch, in the phrase "especially once Britain leaves the EU and is no longer bound by European rules against state aid.". Which means, in Liberal terms, the poor can go straight to hell, "do not pass Go, do not collect $100). If the EU is in the economic mess it is in - it is because of "state-aid"? Howzat?
When a country is set-upon by a Great Recession, meaning that unemployment skyrockets (10/15/20%), "state-aid" is the sine qua non that saves families and allows them to live a bare existence (that some of us find in the first two layers of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.) Despite a raging recession, the EU did what any Social Democracy should have done; that is, meet the needs of the poorest who find themselves impoverished and without hope of finding a job.
Yes, many countries incurred even further debt to maintain "state-aid" that they must still work off; and no Stimulus Spending since that would only worsen further debt-levels. Meaning a lonnnng wait-time to see the end of the economic tunnel in the EU (unlike the US, that is already back down to 4.9% unemployment) .
What Europe must do is reboot its collective economies by means of Targeted Stimulus Spending that not only puts people back to into jobs, but jobs that are endurable. That is, two-fold targeting:
* State-of-the-art companies that develop a new range of services (likely Internet based), and
* The bricks-'n-mortar jobs within which a significant number of employees have made and will make their living.
Both must be targeted - there is no Magic Solution for the entire market-economy ...
___________________________________
Excerpt:
THERESA MAY, Britain’s new prime minister, has certainly been bold, maybe even foolhardy, in some of her cabinet appointments. But she has been equally bold in elevating “industrial strategy” to the top of her new government’s agenda—a move that could mark a clear break with her predecessor’s governments. The very term has been frowned upon in Conservative Party circles since Margaret Thatcher’s leadership. Yet Mrs May argued for “a proper industrial strategy to get the whole economy firing”, in her pitch for taking over from David Cameron. And once installed in Downing Street she quickly created a whole new department, of “Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy”. Why has Mrs May decided to buck a generation’s worth of political orthodoxy?
Mark Littlewood, head of the Institute of Economic Affairs ... argues that adopting even a limited industrial strategy could tempt the government into going further by propping up loss-making industries such as steel—especially once Britain leaves the EU and is no longer bound by European rules against state aid. So far it seems mild enough. But, aware of a popular mood souring against globalisation and a government keen to occupy the political centre-ground abandoned by Labour, many Tories will be on the lookout for signs of mission creep. Well-intentioned interventions could quickly become counter-productive. Yet as the economy deteriorates, the calls for an industrial strategy will grow louder.
I suspect that Mrs May will prove to be a very effective PM, despite Brexit. (She was against it, like any level-headed Brit should have been. Anyway, good-bye GREAT Britain!)
And there is a catch, in the phrase "especially once Britain leaves the EU and is no longer bound by European rules against state aid.". Which means, in Liberal terms, the poor can go straight to hell, "do not pass Go, do not collect $100). If the EU is in the economic mess it is in - it is because of "state-aid"? Howzat?
When a country is set-upon by a Great Recession, meaning that unemployment skyrockets (10/15/20%), "state-aid" is the sine qua non that saves families and allows them to live a bare existence (that some of us find in the first two layers of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.) Despite a raging recession, the EU did what any Social Democracy should have done; that is, meet the needs of the poorest who find themselves impoverished and without hope of finding a job.
Yes, many countries incurred even further debt to maintain "state-aid" that they must still work off; and no Stimulus Spending since that would only worsen further debt-levels. Meaning a lonnnng wait-time to see the end of the economic tunnel in the EU (unlike the US, that is already back down to 4.9% unemployment) .
What Europe must do is reboot its collective economies by means of Targeted Stimulus Spending that not only puts people back to into jobs, but jobs that are endurable. That is, two-fold targeting:
* State-of-the-art companies that develop a new range of services (likely Internet based), and
* The bricks-'n-mortar jobs within which a significant number of employees have made and will make their living.
Both must be targeted - there is no Magic Solution for the entire market-economy ...
___________________________________
Last edited: