Shell will announce the next stage of its global restructuring on Monday, which will result in thousands more job losses.
If “creating jobs” is a good thing, if “protecting jobs” is a good thing, why aren’t we subsidising Shell?
Quick question
September 5th, 2009 · 4 Comments
Tags: Economics
4 responses so far ↓
1 Matthew // Sep 5, 2009 at 10:08 am
I think you’re trying too hard here. Lots of people think jobs should be subsidised, so it doesn’t work.
2 So Much For Subtlety // Sep 6, 2009 at 12:14 am
More to the point, I have always wanted a butler. And I could do with a gardener as well. If creating jobs is a good thing, why doesn’t the Government pay me to hire a few?
3 The Remittance Man // Sep 7, 2009 at 11:33 am
I thought HMG was subsidising Shell.
As we all know transactions need not be in monetary terms and Britain did exchange a chunk of national pride/reputation (and a cancer ridden spy) in return for oil concessions on Shell’s behalf.
4 john b // Sep 8, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Given the amount of UK tax Shell pays (“lots”), I think that was decent value for money on HMG’s part.
(and frankly anyone who thinks less of the UK or of Scotland for releasing Megrahi is a twunt whose opinion we should ignore).
Leave a Comment