Because mined coal can be burned in order to produce electricity.
Also, none of these strikes would have happened under a Labour government. As usual, I blame the Tories in the liberal party.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Because mined coal can be burned in order to produce electricity.
Also, none of these strikes would have happened under a Labour government. As usual, I blame the Tories in the liberal party.
Because mined coal can be burned in order to produce electricity.
Also, none of these strikes would have happened under a Labour government. As usual, I blame the Tories in the liberal party.
Oh it would. The sitation we saw was not caused by the Conservative government. It was just by chance that the bubble the Lib-Labs had created, supported with massive inflation, bursted. If the Lib-Labs had been in government they wouldn't manage to deal with the situation and would end up with a really poor economy. The Tories managed to fight the high inflation and recession that Lib-Lab brought to us. With you it would have spiraled out of control, with even more strikes, unemployment and inflation.
The strikes themselves were caused by the Tories' radical monetarist economic policy.
No they were caused by the economical mismanagement. The recession would still have happened under Labour - only worse. That would have resulted in worse strikes, more unemployment and higher inflation. The "radical" monetarist policies saved the economy from falling into oblivion. Labour was the cancer, and the market was the medicine. That the economy managed to recover so quickly is quite remarkeble, something that would with most certainty not happened under Labour.
I disagree with some of this governments policies, and its implemation. But it is better than the alternative - which would be Labour or Liberals spiraling the economy even more down. The recession wasn't brougt upon by monetarism, it was brought upon by the tight state controlled economy of Lib-Labs.
Because mined coal can be burned in order to produce electricity.
Also, none of these strikes would have happened under a Labour government. As usual, I blame the Tories in the liberal party.
Lets say the price of electricity is 1 per unit consumed.
A mine can produce coal enough to produce 100 units of electricity.
They hire 10 workers, who each are paid 10 cash in wage per day.
So the mine is producing 10 units of electricity (in form of coal), they are sold for a sum of 100 cash, which is all used to pay the wages of the 10 workers, who get 10 cash each. The mine is making no profit, but neither making a loss.
What happens if new sources of electricity are introduced, like nuclear power, or wind power? What if foreigners produce electricity more cheaply?
The mine will start making losses, all other things being equal if the price of electricity drops.
They either drop wages or close because they cannot operate on the long run with losses.
Simple logical conclusions. So why keep the mine operating, if current factors of production make it unprofitable with current wages?
You can hope you get new technology, so 5 guys could produce the same amount of coal that 10 guys used to.
If however, a government starts subsidizing the miners to stay employed, it only means that the mine is still making a loss, but the one who pays for the loss will be the common man.
Meanwhile the workers could have found more profitable jobs, that would not have to funded by the common taxpayer!
Or the mines are once more under the market forces, and have to modernize in order to become profitable. In the long run society and the workers will benefit from alternative energy sources arrive, or that the mines are modernized, and might then produce more for less.
We're simply seeing the structure of the old society changing, and getting a new and vibrant economy. Now we might also be able to compete with the other economies. As to date our economy have suffered frombeing obsolete and not substaineble for competition.
We're simply seeing the structure of the old society changing, and getting a new and vibrant economy. Now we might also be able to compete with the other economies. As to date our economy have suffered frombeing obsolete and not substaineble for competition.
I thought the strikes were organized by the UNIONS who were pissed that the government did not hand them enough monetary benefits?
There's still a lot of people reading who will vote Tory even if Satan himself lead the party. Myself included. HOWEVER, these National Front guys will only split the right-wing vote though I fear. If there's one force that can suck Tory voters away it would be them.
As usual, Enewald forgets that there is more to the world than economics, and that what makes economic sense often also makes political nonsense. Descend from your Ivory Towers people!
The strikes weren't caused because of economic factors alone, don't be naive, Rosa.
Exactly, the Tories.
The strikes weren't caused because of economic factors alone, don't be naive, Rosa.
Exactly, the Tories.
What concerns and repulses me is this insistence upon 'economic prosperity' over the prosperity of the common man, slashing government programs designed to help out those less fortunate, unable to afford the prices of the 'free market' for basic goods. Apparently it matters not if the lowly workers are able to afford living wages, so long as the various tycoons are able to increase their profits exponentially. The tired dialogue of the capitalists almost tempts me to vote Communist. Almost.
If you vote for a party which doesn't even have the slightest chance of obtaining power (due to their purity fetish) then you let the Tories win by default. There has to be at least one political party in this country which puts people before profit, principle before percentages and power-sharing before ideological purity, and as things stand that party is the Labour party. You weaken, not strengthen, those principles if you vote for a party like the Communists.
Oh, trust me, I know this all too well, which is why I have resisted the urge, and shall continue to do so.
Tanzhang, your best response is to claim that I am atop an Ivory Tower?
How about you read what I wrote and offer good critique instead?
How about you read what I wrote and offer good critique instead?
Capitalism was not created with the interests of the worker in mind. Workers are just seen as a walking vote. But thanks to the unequalled self-deception skills of the proletariat, capitalism lives on regardless...
Tanzhang, your best response is to claim that I am atop an Ivory Tower?
How about you read what I wrote and offer good critique instead?
You just don't get it. I'm talking about political realities, you're talking (as per usual) about theoretical economics. That may be fine way to talk if you were running a coal-producing business, but it's a terrible way to run the nation's energy policy in the early 1970's. It's all well and good to talk about "the future" from the vantage point of 2014 where you know what's going to happen, but unfortunately the rest of us are still sitting over here in 1972. Without electricity, I might add, because thanks to the Ivory Tower Tory economists all our sole producers of electrical power have gone out on strike. Don't worry they say, cause in 20 years time safe, cheap and plausible alternatives to coal power will exist - I guess i'll just have to live by candlelight until then.
Or, you know, because it's the worst economic system except for all the others that have been tried.
You're quite correct – it is indeed Llafur Cymru. I should point out, however, that I don't know of anyone in my family who supports PC. Indeed, all the politicians I know of in my family are Labour Party members.
I'd also point out that no one was ever talking about separation. That is far too extreme a goal.
Tanzhang, your best response is to claim that I am atop an Ivory Tower?
How about you read what I wrote and offer good critique instead?
No one read the link I provided, did they?
You're quite correct – it is indeed Llafur Cymru. I should point out, however, that I don't know of anyone in my family who supports PC. All the politicians I know of in my family are Labour Party members.
Wouldn't it be just plain old Plaid Llafur at this point in time? I was of the impression that regional parties weren't a thing until the 90's - but that might only have been because of devolution.
Except for Dadrian's crazy Australian equivalent, of course.
You provided a link?
You just don't get it. I'm talking about political realities, you're talking (as per usual) about theoretical economics. That may be fine way to talk if you were running a coal-producing business, but it's a terrible way to run the nation's energy policy in the early 1970's. It's all well and good to talk about "the future" from the vantage point of 2014 where you know what's going to happen, but unfortunately the rest of us are still sitting over here in 1972. Without electricity, I might add, because thanks to the Ivory Tower Tory economists all our sole producers of electrical power have gone out on strike. Don't worry they say, cause in 20 years time safe, cheap and plausible alternatives to coal power will exist - I guess i'll just have to live by candlelight until then.
When was nuclear energy making its breakthrough? 70s, 80s?
If someone refuses to work, fire them. Didn't the update say there were over million unemployed? New jobs just opened. Crack the unions, they have no right to restrict access to jobs. The question of wage is between the employer and the employee, and the market forces that determine the margin within which the firm can stay profitable, but does not make too big profits, otherwise competitors might join and drive you out.
One can also import coal... And oil for fecks sake, the industry is booming, new fountains everywhere!
- Status