@ Octavious: "The construction sector... such a small sector it doesn't have that much effect either way."

The UK construction sector employs over 2 million people and accounts for about 8% of the UK's GDP. In what way does it "not have much effect" ??

@ Jamiet: Relative to the financial and service sectors (which both tend to produce more or less reliable sets of figures) it is really quite small.

@ Soc: I really don't know much about Morales aside from Chavez sayinh how great he is every 5 minutes (which makes me naturally suspicious of him), but it could well be that he is a rare exception. I'll have to pay more attention to him.

Socrates, let the grown-ups like Putin or Jamiet do the talking when your royal ass can't be bothered, the world will be a better place.

Cuba had more than seven times higher GDP per capita than China when Deng took over. That gives leeway in the allocation of funds for possible social spending. Now the difference in GDP per capita is less than 10%. Since you're functionally illiterate and can't possibly grasp this elementary maths, I assure you - that's a lot. That's hundreds of millions of Chinese lifted from misery. Of course you don't care since the politburo doesn't sport the same branch of communism as you do and should be therefore shot as the counter-revolutionary capitalist pigs they are but here in the real world, we call it progress.

Why do people think that being such c***s makes their point any better? Yeah shoot them all, obviously what I said. The iron rice bowls that i mentioned (which you failed to respond to), were affordable, and cutting them was wrong. And I don't think you have at any point demonstrated that the shift to capitalism is responsible for any increase in conditions. But maybe when my royal ass grows up, becomes functionally literate, grasps elementary maths AND stops demanding that we shoot all the members of other communist groups (oh, and learns to call itself communist), I will see things your way.

I am going to interject by saying that the economist has heavily criticized the bank of Englands monetary policy and how reluctant it is to provide QE (unlike the Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank) or change interest rates (unlike the Fed, Bank of Canada or the ECB).

Looking at fiscal policy in isolation in an independent economy like the UK is meaningless. On the other hand because eurozone is single economic zone, countries such as Greece and Italy have no monetary policy so one has to look at fiscal policy in isolation as the ECB is not going to give any relief to Southern Europe that would hurt economic growth in Germany.

@ Octavious: Yes, *relatve* to the two largest sectors of the UK economy, construction is smaller than them. But it's still very significant.

The iron rice bowls strangled the mobility of labour and therefore prevented any serious restructuralization of the economy; in case of China, rapid industrialization. Industrialization aimed at producing transferable goods for export to developed capitalist countries. Industrialization driven by cooperation with capitalist corporations - gradually building up from the position of mere cheap manufacturer to a position of a country with the most practical know-how in variety of sectors.

"More good news for Putin! These days, you can be the leader of a communist nation with all the spoils of a capitalist one! Progress, I say!"

So, in your rush to redbait a thread which exposes the weakness of your austerity policies, did you bother to read the article you posted? None of what was written here says anything about Wen Jiabao, which refuses to live in the Zhongnanhai complex but has a simple apartment in Beijing. This is like saying Osama Bin Laden loves America because his relatives have business ties with plenty of American companies.

What's funny is the NYT piece kept saying how hard it is to find actual information about this, but yet they have no problem trying to tarnish Wen Jiabao and ironically *weaken the rightwing within the Chinese Communist Party* with guilty-by-association like insinuations.

"@ Octavious: Yes, *relatve* to the two largest sectors of the UK economy, construction is smaller than them. But it's still very significant."

Don't worry Jamie, any sector which tanks under Con-Lib misrule will automatically be labeled "insignificant", nevermind that the housing sector was what caused the financial collapse in Europe and America, and which is keying economic recovery as well. I'm sure Thatcher considered it "insignificant" when she privatized council housing.

Dear Octavious,

Does it bother you that the rightwing media you're taking notes from has had to apologize to people like Bob Crow for lying about his supposed luxurious lifestyle? I like how backbencher MPs supposedly do as much work as a union leader running an organization of two million people.

In terms of useful work MPs do infinitely more than the likes of Crow, although that's a matter of opinion I guess. As far as the Telegraph goes, we both quote from it and the main thrust of its articles is generally reliable, although it does get carried away from time to time :p.

Wow, a random blog says the stats are skewed against the United States, so that must mean it is true. Nevermind that US agencies conclude that doesn't make much of a difference.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm

"In terms of useful work MPs do infinitely more than the likes of Crow, "

Yes, the expenses scandal demonstrates how much 'useful work' they are up to, like building moats and the like.

I agree with you completely that public sector workers tend to be free and easy with their expenses claims. I don't see how this relates to the work they do, however.

"Please provide evidentiary proof of big govt grants to Boeing and GE"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558#.UIwx9sVJOAg

"In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit."

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/10/29/ge-gets-over-2-3-federal-energy-grants-every-month/

An IER examination of federal energy grants has found that GE has received just short of $300 million in grants from 2000-2010.

http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/wto-upholds-boeing-subsidies-ruling-airbus-boeing-both-claim-

"The World Trade Organization (WTO) on Monday upheld a ruling that Boeing received “at least” $5.3 billion of unfair subsidies between 1989 and 2006 and agreed with Airbus that the effect of the financial support is larger than their face value in light of their “particularly pervasive” nature."

Private sector efficiency indeed.

One thing Crow gets right is to oppose the destruction of the records of Ruskin College. I remember when the 11 plus was abolished. How the upper class celebrated, no more competition for their kids from the oiks of the middle- and, God forbid, working-class. Put that nail into Ruskin once and for all.

The WTO? Really? The say every reimbursement of a business expense is a grant. Hell, by their standards, I jist received a $3500 grant from Calgary, Alberta, CA because my business trip there was with Calgary and Alberta.

And a tac break isn't a grant. It is part of a negotiated deal aka a contract.

You said they receive no grants. They clearly get plenty of grants. Only you would think all of that money was travel reimbursement, when there is plenty of information about specific grants that these companies got. Only you would think getting billions in tax benefits and avoiding the payment of taxes entirely, while the rest of us actually have to pay taxes, including businesses, is an example of GE's "efficiency". You're going to dodge your "epic failure" of an argument, right, rather than admit you're wrong.

@ Draug, you might find this interesting:
In a story that sheds new light on the extent of the country’s financial crisis, Bloomberg Markets magazine reported today that the Federal Reserve lent trillions of dollars to beleaguered financial institutions, with $1.2 trillion going out on just one day in 2008.

“The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy,” Bloomberg reported today. ”And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/11/fed-gave-banks-trillions-in-bailout-bloomberg-reports/

Nice work if you can get it! In the context of austerity this has to be capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

It's not socialism for the rich (which doesn't even make sense). This is how capitalism always operates. It cannot survive otherwise.

Privatizing the gains and socializing the losses is pretty clear to me.

@ful - We weren't talking about banks. Bankers are greedy scum of the earth. No doubt about it. They truly make money for nothing. Dire Straits woild be so proud. We were talking about innovators and the private sector being better than the government.

Agree about innovators entirely. I am not sure, however, about generalising about the private sector. I used to buy all, for went of a better expression, ''healthy competition'' mantra. Now I am not so sure, it seems to me that the protection of monopoly/oligopoly is much more what most of these guys are about. We have a really good example of this in the UK at the moment with the privatizsed energy companies.

Virtually all our power companies are private as well. But the states have regulatory commissions that oversee them preventing them from gouging the customers. Regulation and oversight are very important. I am a believer in a free market and capitalism but with government oversight to keep them in check.