> I'm sorry, are you genuinely trying to argue for austerity ("hard but necessary reforms accompanied by significant spending cuts") in a thread that literally started with someone posting information
I'm sorry, are you genuinely implying that there one-size-fits-all approaches in economics that universally work regardless of the circumstances? And I'm pretty sure your misinterpreting the article or fundamentally misunderstand how statistical models work.
> scientific basis for claims that austerity works
It does work to a degree in certain cases. Or at least in certain situations is the least bad option.
> The article shifts a lot of the blame for its failure on strikes and the company being too poorly organized to withstand them but the continuous failure of BMH following the merger is a running theme
Yes British business weren't competitive because of continuous government interference and dysfunctional yet to influential trade unions. The merger in 1968 was an outcome of government and trade union meddling Leyland was doing fine on it's own and there were no good reason for it to merge with BMH (which was on the brink of bankruptcy) as a result of that both went under eventually..
> Honestly, if anything BL's history reads like an example of aggressive mergers/buy-outs ruining an industry
Yes but these mergers/buy-outs were imposed by the government...
I'm sorry, are you genuinely implying that there one-size-fits-all approaches in economics that universally work regardless of the circumstances? And I'm pretty sure your misinterpreting the article or fundamentally misunderstand how statistical models work.
> scientific basis for claims that austerity works
It does work to a degree in certain cases. Or at least in certain situations is the least bad option.
> The article shifts a lot of the blame for its failure on strikes and the company being too poorly organized to withstand them but the continuous failure of BMH following the merger is a running theme
Yes British business weren't competitive because of continuous government interference and dysfunctional yet to influential trade unions. The merger in 1968 was an outcome of government and trade union meddling Leyland was doing fine on it's own and there were no good reason for it to merge with BMH (which was on the brink of bankruptcy) as a result of that both went under eventually..
> Honestly, if anything BL's history reads like an example of aggressive mergers/buy-outs ruining an industry
Yes but these mergers/buy-outs were imposed by the government...