• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

scaramanga said:
They're already in place, why would they change?
Click to expand...

Because we will be desperate to conclude deals. It is in the interests of any country that we are negotiating with the drive a hard bargain and to drag out negotiations in the knowledge that we will need to conclude deals.

I
scaramanga said:
t's the same as materials. Money flows one way, benefit the other. It's not that special.
Click to expand...

Most trade deals do not include services. They are difficult to conclude but our economy is so weighted towards services that we are going to need them. The most important one to conclude will be a services agreement with the EU but I think that this is the first that they would pull if we wanted to restrict European migration.

I
scaramanga said:
It's not done us much damage in the EU. As with all industry, competition will improve efficiency and quality or price. Competition is good.
Click to expand...

The difference with the EU is that there is a reasonably level playing field on terms of employment. If we have zero tariffs across the board then we will see a lot more Tata Steels.
 
milo said:
Because we will be desperate to conclude deals. It is in the interests of any country that we are negotiating with the drive a hard bargain and to drag out negotiations in the knowledge that we will need to conclude deals.
Click to expand...
Why would we be desperate? We're a net importer, the majority of our deals will be with people wanting to sell to us.

Even in worst case scenario the WTO has a perfectly good base level to work from.

milo said:
Most trade deals do not include services. They are difficult to conclude but our economy is so weighted towards services that we are going to need them. The most important one to conclude will be a services agreement with the EU but I think that this is the first that they would pull if we wanted to restrict European migration.
Click to expand...
I still don't see a convincing argument why service negotiation would be any different to products. As with products, we are already trading with the world under EU restrictions, we can offer better than that out of the blocks - we're in a far better position than you think we are in that sense.

I would expect any deal with the EU to include freedom of movement and therefore tariff-free trade on both goods and services.

milo said:
The difference with the EU is that there is a reasonably level playing field on terms of employment. If we have zero tariffs across the board then we will see a lot more Tata Steels.
Click to expand...
I do hope so. This country has seen very little trimming of the markets over the last decade because the recession came with such cheap credit. We currently have a race to the bottom in many industries that would be relaxed by a few of the least efficient leaving the market.
 
scaramanga said:
Why would we be desperate? We're a net importer, the majority of our deals will be with people wanting to sell to us.

Even in worst case scenario the WTO has a perfectly good base level to work from.
Click to expand...

Because we would be starting from having no trade agreements in place and would want to conclude deals quickly. You were asking about the amount of time taken to conclude deals, the one between Australia and China took ten years, Canada and the EU seven. We cannot afford to take that long, which would make it more likely that we would have to accept poorer terms.

scaramanga said:
I still don't see a convincing argument why service negotiation would be any different to products. As with products, we are already trading with the world under EU restrictions, we can offer better than that out of the blocks - we're in a far better position than you think we are in that sense.

I would expect any deal with the EU to include freedom of movement and therefore tariff-free trade on both goods and services.
Click to expand...

I can't pretend to be an expert on international trade agreements or negotiating them. I do know that there aren't many service agreements and that they are far more difficult to conclude. For example, the Canadian/EU treaty that Johnson was using as an example of what we could get during the referendum campaign is for good only.

scaramanga said:
I do hope so. This country has seen very little trimming of the markets over the last decade because the recession came with such cheap credit. We currently have a race to the bottom in many industries that would be relaxed by a few of the least efficient leaving the market.
Click to expand...

I do not think that is what disaffected Labour voters in the north east, Lancashire, Wales and the midlands thought that they were voting for when they voted for Brexit. Regardless of whether it is the right economic choice or not, I think that it would be politically impossible for the government to follow.
 
scaramanga said:
Far from it. Economically illiterate is not understanding why capital gains tax has to be significantly lower than income tax.

I hope for his sake he just has a habit of spouting off without thinking about what he's saying because otherwise his understanding of economics is similar to that of a junior school kid.

The top end tax stuff isn't so much an economics issue (although we do need to remain competitive) as an electoral one. Start pushing too hard for what is a rich man's tax rate on a fairly middling London salary and you start to lose votes in those Labour heartlands such as Islington.
Click to expand...


I'd have a lot more time for those who support neo-liberal free market economics, if they were honest and admitted the whole concept is about benefiting the top 10-20% and everybody else can catch their own. Rather than the con of arguing that the crumbs from the table are all that the lower orders can ever hope for and that a part time casual job is the best of all economic worlds
 
Last edited:
Gilzeantoscore said:
I'd have a lot more time for those who support neo-liberal free market economics, if they were honest and admitted the whole concept is about benefitting the top 10-20% and everybody else can catch their own. Rather than the con of arguing that the crumbs from the table are all that the lower orders can ever hope for and that a part time casual job is the best of all economic worlds
Click to expand...
That shows the fatal flaw in your understanding and why your comprehension falls so short on this topic.

Those that support my form of economics want (in every single case that I know of) exactly what I want - everyone to have enough. You and I simply differ on the means of getting to that point.

I believe that people can have enough without having to punish the successful, others believe that isn't the case - don't pretend to yourself that you have some kind of moral high ground though, because that couldn't be less true.
 
milo said:
Because we would be starting from having no trade agreements in place and would want to conclude deals quickly. You were asking about the amount of time taken to conclude deals, the one between Australia and China took ten years, Canada and the EU seven. We cannot afford to take that long, which would make it more likely that we would have to accept poorer terms.
Click to expand...
We're not starting from a blank canvas though.

We are already trading with these countries on EU terms - what we can (and should) offer will be at least as good and almost certainly better. Any country trying to force more than that is likely to risk no trade with us at all for a period - probably far too risky for the small rewards taking such a stance would garner.

milo said:
I can't pretend to be an expert on international trade agreements or negotiating them. I do know that there aren't many service agreements and that they are far more difficult to conclude. For example, the Canadian/EU treaty that Johnson was using as an example of what we could get during the referendum campaign is for good only.
Click to expand...
Neither can I but as above, something already is in place as we are currently trading services with these countries.

It's not like we're negotiating from scratch, we're tweaking an agreement that's already in place to (if we have any sense at all) be less protectionist.

milo said:
I do not think that is what disaffected Labour voters in the north east, Lancashire, Wales and the midlands thought that they were voting for when they voted for Brexit. Regardless of whether it is the right economic choice or not, I think that it would be politically impossible for the government to follow.
Click to expand...
It's probably not, but I doubt a Tory government cares too much about Labour voters in those parts. Anyone voting to Leave because they want an end to EU immigration is a fool - that was never going to happen.
 
Probably/maybe, but the fact that is has still gone through shows that all the doom and gloom after the result was overhyped and that there is still life after Brexit.
 
scaramanga said:
That shows the fatal flaw in your understanding and why your comprehension falls so short on this topic.

Those that support my form of economics want (in every single case that I know of) exactly what I want - everyone to have enough. You and I simply differ on the means of getting to that point.

I believe that people can have enough without having to punish the successful, others believe that isn't the case - don't pretend to yourself that you have some kind of moral high ground though, because that couldn't be less true.
Click to expand...

How come no one has yet explained exactly how the so called invisible hand mechanism works. This is why it is described as voodoo economics....that was George Bush Snr's description. It is predicated on the top orders receiving the lion's share of economic benefits, with the view (un-explained how) that wealth will then trickle down. It is a system designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, i.e. it lauds efforts to drive down wages, conditions of work, to cut back welfare etc. You have mixed your aims with those of free market trickle down economics. They are not the same. Moral high ground? For me it's just about calling out the elite trying to rig the system to their economic advantage even further. Right wing governments can implement it, but they should not attempt to blow smoke up the arses of the lowest paid members of society by trying to say it's to their advantage too. Neo -liberalism is a con and people, particularly the young, who don't read the fascist private press are waking up.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
How come no one has yet explained exactly how the so called invisible hand mechanism works.
Click to expand...
They have. Repeatedly. For the last 240 years.

Adam Smith said:
But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value, every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
Click to expand...

For further reading, you could look at General Equilibrium, but I highly recommend I, Pencil - it's an enlightening read.


Gilzeantoscore said:
This is why it is described as voodoo economics....that was George Bush Snr's description.
Click to expand...
Never thought I'd see you on the side of a Bush. I don't care what he calls it, he's not an economist and he's not a very successful president either.

Gilzeantoscore said:
It is predicated on the top orders receiving the lion's share of economic benefits, with the view (un-explained how) that wealth will then trickle down.
Click to expand...
It's been explained again and again, please see above.

Gilzeantoscore said:
It is a system designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor,
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be called "Trickle up" if that was the case?

Gilzeantoscore said:
i.e. it lauds efforts to drive down wages, conditions of work, to cut back welfare etc. You have mixed your aims with those of free market trickle down economics. They are not the same.
Click to expand...
Yes they are. I'm not quite sure why you're trying to pigeon-hole my economic principles into one small branch there. My opinions on economics are varied - in places shared with "trickle down economics" in others not. I guess it's easier to invent an enemy when you give it a name.

Gilzeantoscore said:
Moral high ground? For me it's just about calling out the elite trying to rig the system to their economic advantage even further. Right wing governments can implement it, but they should not attempt to blow smoke up the arses of the lowest paid members of society by trying to say it's to their advantage too. Neo -liberalism is a con and people, particularly the young, who don't read the fascist private press are waking up.
Click to expand...
I don't know how many generations of voting you've looked at, but the young are always voting to the left. Even I thought communism was a good idea before I was in senior school.

I'm probably misquoting here, but a good truism is "If you’re not a socialist before you’re twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head." I'll try and dig it out in French as it's far more descriptive.
 
scaramanga said:
...I'm probably misquoting here, but a good truism is "If you’re not a socialist before you’re twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head." I'll try and dig it out in French as it's far more descriptive.
Click to expand...

Sadly, that says more about humanity than anything. We start wide-eyed and hopeful before realizing that in order to get anywhere, it's 'best' to be self-interested regardless of the potential effect on others. This is, of course, as simplistic a statement as the above (and not in French either!) but it's a truism in my books. Personally, I've always tried to hold firm to the premise that freedom to work harder and earn more money/be wealthy is great so long as we don't forget that there is a society out there and we all have a duty to do the best both for it and by it that we can (i.e. empathize with the people around us)...where it can get tricky is if naivety expands within the cracks.
 
How many of out other firms have been sold off over the last decade or so, nothing new in what Preston is going on about and its pointless him having a dig at May when this has been going on for years.

Blah blah blah ( nothing new). Sounds like a lot of sour grapes from Preston who sounds like he is another remainer who is just rabbiting on.

And as far as i know this deal has been going on since before the vote so they have still done it and saved themselves some money. Are you saying ( They are buying up UK assets on the cheap because the pound has fallen) is the main reason they are taking over something that will make them a lot of money? because if you are i can not agree.
 
John Snow on Channel 4 news is getting quite pathetic and one sided about it all, I expected better from him, maybe I should have listened to my father that channel 4 is "full of communists"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back