|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 19, 2023 22:29:31 GMT
The CBI were in favour of EU membership, ERM membership and membership of the Euro... I'd be shocked if they were not calling for closer ties. Just what we need big business getting the policies they want to push wages down - we tried that for the last 40 years. The demand for higher wages is not because of lack of personnel. I believe one of your friends boasted that the UK could still attract immigrant or specialist employees. It is because of inflation. I have to assume from the above that you vote hard left, since you want to suppress employment in order to increase wages. Causing, of course, reduced productivity and less global competition. A more difficult daily life for the people due to shortages of personnel, and that you are ready to compete across the world for higher wages than anyone else for doctors, surgeons, business experts, political advisors, research specialists etc. It all costs money. China became a world economic leader through lower wages. India isn't far behind. Indonesia and Africa will outbid high waged industry for more than a lifetime. This is the 21st century global economy, not the 19th century British Empire which enriched itself by the same low wage profits. Countries compete on cost/profit ratios. Reduced wage costs means more profit. Higher wages and reduced productivity due to fewer employees equals economic suicide. It's simple - I don't think that advanced Western economies can compete on a race to the bottom with low pay and conditions. Which is why I was against FoM which drove wages and conditions down. I see no future for the UK with your dream of a low pay economy.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 20, 2023 0:53:13 GMT
I regard products, goods, manufactured items as commodities, but I have never regarded people, workers or employees as commodoties. I also very firmly believe that British workers are far better protected by the EU, than they would be if left completely to a Tory government. British workers were frequently undercut and called lazy when we were in the EU. I want good wages for British workers. There's been a growing cost of living crisis building for decades. We need to sort it and EU membership was just driving down wages and flooding the labour market with cheap.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 20, 2023 8:15:47 GMT
The demand for higher wages is not because of lack of personnel. I believe one of your friends boasted that the UK could still attract immigrant or specialist employees. It is because of inflation. I have to assume from the above that you vote hard left, since you want to suppress employment in order to increase wages. Causing, of course, reduced productivity and less global competition. A more difficult daily life for the people due to shortages of personnel, and that you are ready to compete across the world for higher wages than anyone else for doctors, surgeons, business experts, political advisors, research specialists etc. It all costs money. China became a world economic leader through lower wages. India isn't far behind. Indonesia and Africa will outbid high waged industry for more than a lifetime. This is the 21st century global economy, not the 19th century British Empire which enriched itself by the same low wage profits. Countries compete on cost/profit ratios. Reduced wage costs means more profit. Higher wages and reduced productivity due to fewer employees equals economic suicide. It's simple - I don't think that advanced Western economies can compete on a race to the bottom with low pay and conditions. Which is why I was against FoM which drove wages and conditions down. I see no future for the UK with your dream of a low pay economy. It isn't my dream. It is a fact of economic life. Thatcher recognised that the UK could either compete on price or join the group of richer countries which grow by paying for expertise and competing by paying MORE for the select few who command high wages and are themselves "unique". However it is necessary to be able to offer these people the best opportunities to use their talents and work with others freely. If they can't they will go somewhere else. In general, higher wages fuels inflation. This affects the poorer population and eventually the benefits necessary to support those who ne
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 20, 2023 8:24:19 GMT
It's simple - I don't think that advanced Western economies can compete on a race to the bottom with low pay and conditions. Which is why I was against FoM which drove wages and conditions down. I see no future for the UK with your dream of a low pay economy. It isn't my dream. It is a fact of economic life. Thatcher recognised that the UK could either compete on price or join the group of richer countries which grow by paying for expertise and competing by paying MORE for the select few who command high wages and are themselves "unique". However it is necessary to be able to offer these people the best opportunities to use their talents and work with others freely. If they can't they will go somewhere else. In general, higher wages fuels inflation. This affects the poorer population and eventually the benefits necessary to support those who ne You may want more Thatcherism but many others (including many of those who voted for Brexit) disagree. Given that the UK grew more slowly after joining the EU and its FoM than it did before I dont see that it added anything to the prosperity of the average working man.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 20, 2023 8:25:24 GMT
The demand for higher wages is not because of lack of personnel. I believe one of your friends boasted that the UK could still attract immigrant or specialist employees. It is because of inflation. I have to assume from the above that you vote hard left, since you want to suppress employment in order to increase wages. Causing, of course, reduced productivity and less global competition. A more difficult daily life for the people due to shortages of personnel, and that you are ready to compete across the world for higher wages than anyone else for doctors, surgeons, business experts, political advisors, research specialists etc. It all costs money. China became a world economic leader through lower wages. India isn't far behind. Indonesia and Africa will outbid high waged industry for more than a lifetime. This is the 21st century global economy, not the 19th century British Empire which enriched itself by the same low wage profits. Countries compete on cost/profit ratios. Reduced wage costs means more profit. Higher wages and reduced productivity due to fewer employees equals economic suicide. It's simple - I don't think that advanced Western economies can compete on a race to the bottom with low pay and conditions. Which is why I was against FoM which drove wages and conditions down. I see no future for the UK with your dream of a low pay economy. It isn't my dream. It is a fact of economic life. Thatcher recognised that the UK could either compete on price or join the group of richer countries which grow by paying for expertise and competing by paying MORE for the select few who command high wages and are themselves "unique". However it is necessary to be able to offer these people the best opportunities to use their talents and work with others freely. If they can't they will go somewhere else. In general, higher wages fuels inflation. This affects the poorer population and eventually the benefits necessary to support those who need help. It costs the state/our taxes. Which is why the state refuses even to discuss pay rises to state employees even after three years of minimum or no pay rise. These essential workers are either striking or finding work in the private sector and causing more stress on the services we rely on. A few shortage of public sector workers, so commonly employed from immigrants, is not being rewarded by higher pay BECAUSE that would create inflation which the country can't afford. The simplistic economic tales told in 2016 never made sense in the wider context of the reality of a global trading country.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 20, 2023 8:28:42 GMT
Gnome said: " What's financially illiterate is the claim that the financial problems faced by the Eurozone and the EU in '08-'09 were not part of the global financial crisis -- which "coincidentally" occurred during the same, exact period. Whether you think the EU's financial problems are intractable and very difficult to solve is irrelevant." If you want to solve a problem it's important to understand the cause of it. That's fundamental. If you want to shrug off the Eurozone's financial problems as just part of the "Global Financial Crisis" then you're financially illiterate. They're caused by the attempt to share one currency between disparate countries without fiscal union and require a different solution to the financial problems of the UK and the USA. Printing money won't help the Eurozone. The "coincidence" of the financial problems was caused by the USA's "solution" to their banks' bad debt problems of selling CDO's around the world to naive bankers. That caused the Credit Crunch because no one knew which banks were holding the worthless paper. But the basic problems of the various countries who were affected by the Credit Crunch were NOT the same. They just had the same "trigger" - the Credit Crunch. But they needed different solutions - and the EU has NEVER solved its ongoing problems. That's why I call them "intractable" - and call you financially illiterate. You just google figures that seem to back up your own opinion - without having any understanding of what's actually going on. If you want to solve a problem, first and foremost and particularly in your case, you must recognise and accept that there is a problem. You won't get anywhere if you deny to yourself that there is a problem. Second is you forget your analyses. People have infinitely better, more sensible and authoritative sources. I was not and am not shrugging off the Eurozone's financial problems as "just part of the GFC". We were talking about a specific period and event -- the global financial crisis. It was you and it is you trying to play down, disassociate, extricate even, the global financial crisis from the Eurozone problem in your attempt to insert your own analyses into argument. Again. So. Could you do us all a favour and give your personal analyses of the monetary and fiscal policies of the European Union a rest. Please! Yeah, you call me financially illiterate and you also believe that "naive bankers" exist. "The US" even sold their bad debts to these "naive bankers" as well! Nothing to do with deregulation. No, not at all, according to you. Effing amateur, that's what you are. None of this even begins to make sense, gnome. You don't even begin to understand the subject - like most Remainers.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 20, 2023 8:30:29 GMT
It isn't my dream. It is a fact of economic life. Thatcher recognised that the UK could either compete on price or join the group of richer countries which grow by paying for expertise and competing by paying MORE for the select few who command high wages and are themselves "unique". However it is necessary to be able to offer these people the best opportunities to use their talents and work with others freely. If they can't they will go somewhere else. In general, higher wages fuels inflation. This affects the poorer population and eventually the benefits necessary to support those who ne You may want more Thatcherism but many others (including many of those who voted for Brexit) disagree. Given that the UK grew more slowly after joining the EU and its FoM than it did before I dont see that it added anything to the prosperity of the average working man. I don't want more Thatcherism. I merely mentioned the reality of the thinking behind what happened. You are misreading again. Your second point has been shown to be false in another thread. The economy of the UK took off until the recession of the 90's which affected everyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 8:39:03 GMT
Is it not time we actually had a sensible, grown up conversation about Brexit and its consequences, instead of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring what is the every day reality of it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 20, 2023 8:46:10 GMT
You may want more Thatcherism but many others (including many of those who voted for Brexit) disagree. Given that the UK grew more slowly after joining the EU and its FoM than it did before I dont see that it added anything to the prosperity of the average working man. I don't want more Thatcherism. I merely mentioned the reality of the thinking behind what happened. You are misreading again. Your second point has been shown to be false in another thread. The economy of the UK took off until the recession of the 90's which affected everyone. Well you were citing Thatcherism as the correct path to follow - sorry but I dont agree. With regards to my second point - in the 25 years prior to joining the single market in 1992 the UK had an average growth rate of 2.4% - in the 25 years since it has averaged 2.2%. I'm struggling to see the benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 20, 2023 8:46:40 GMT
View Attachment Is it not time we actually had a sensible, grown up conversation about Brexit and its consequences, instead of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring what is the every day reality of it. When are you intending to start?
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 20, 2023 8:53:41 GMT
Remember when the UK joined the then EU in 1973, there was a general western economic recession 1973 to 1975. Seems these economists were close to being spot in. Sir, Boris Johnson recently asserted that the “EU is a graveyard of low growth”. This claim merits proper examination to determine, precisely, how the UK, US, Germany and France have done since 1973, the year in which the UK joined the EU. Per capita GDP of the UK economy grew by 103%, exceeding the 97% growth of the US. Within the EU, the UK edged out Germany (99%) and clobbered France (74%). The UK’s growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008. This makes it hard to argue that the EU is dragging the UK down. Alternatively, compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU. www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/brexit/This is very misleading. The average GDP growth of the UK (over many decades) is about 2% and it didn't change much when we joined the Common Market.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 20, 2023 9:28:11 GMT
View Attachment Is it not time we actually had a sensible, grown up conversation about Brexit and its consequences, instead of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring what is the every day reality of it. If a farmer will not pay a decent wage and can't get the staff, that's their problem. Pay the staff properly and they'll work. Reason they wouldn't hire British workers is the Tolpuddle Martyr syndrome. Pay British workers shit pay and they'll unionise and strike. To get around the trade unions they decided to hire cheap imported labour on slave wages and if the worker didn't like it they got sacked. Now, they can't do that, they have to rejoin the civilised world and pay decent wages. When they do that, they'll get the staff.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 20, 2023 9:40:27 GMT
I don't want more Thatcherism. I merely mentioned the reality of the thinking behind what happened. You are misreading again. Your second point has been shown to be false in another thread. The economy of the UK took off until the recession of the 90's which affected everyone. Well you were citing Thatcherism as the correct path to follow - sorry but I dont agree. With regards to my second point - in the 25 years prior to joining the single market in 1992 the UK had an average growth rate of 2.4% - in the 25 years since it has averaged 2.2%. I'm struggling to see the benefit. I did not Pacifico. I MENTION3D her as someone who moved the UK off the road of competing with low wage economies and ONTO a high tech, high wage group of countries. By your reckoning if I mention Mein Kampf you would think I am a Nazi. Thatcher had the dream, not me. But it was implemented when the UK was integrated into the EU and could freely share projects, research, costs ofcdevelopment such as Horizon, which the UK now has to pay into or spend utterly unnecessary billions trying to copy. Why is the UK launching military satellites when sharing the cost of the EU's would be so much cheaper? The "new" agricultural regulations trumpeted as the UK's Brexit benefit were already in or nearly in place in 2020. Why reinvent the wheel?? Now the UK is detached from the easy exchange of expertise in an economy that depends on expertise to grow, why would investors choose the UK to support? The only areas the UK attracts dfi is in off shore green energy and genomic research. Other places are developing hydrogen energy, battery development, materials for space travel, AI, computer chip technology, high tech medical research and tecnhique, and more. The UK voted itself to be on the outside looking in. And then wonders why its growth is slow.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Feb 20, 2023 9:43:03 GMT
Remember when the UK joined the then EU in 1973, there was a general western economic recession 1973 to 1975. Seems these economists were close to being spot in. Sir, Boris Johnson recently asserted that the “EU is a graveyard of low growth”. This claim merits proper examination to determine, precisely, how the UK, US, Germany and France have done since 1973, the year in which the UK joined the EU. Per capita GDP of the UK economy grew by 103%, exceeding the 97% growth of the US. Within the EU, the UK edged out Germany (99%) and clobbered France (74%). The UK’s growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008. This makes it hard to argue that the EU is dragging the UK down. Alternatively, compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU. www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/brexit/This is very misleading. The average GDP growth of the UK (over many decades) is about 2% and it didn't change much when we joined the Common Market. Well you toddle off to Oxford and present your own detailed thesis to the good professors. Do however note that they were discussing PER CAPITA GDP. Not national GDP. First take into account relative population size. And they were right by your own admission. The EU did not "drag the UK economy down".
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 20, 2023 9:49:44 GMT
There was nothing high tech about running down our manufacturing industry for imports. We need a mixed economy reflecting everyone's skills. It makes sense to have our own military satellites. We are an independent sovereign country and sometimes have to unilaterally act militarily without anyone else's approval. See Operation Corporate, Operation Black Buck, Operation Paraquet as examples.
If we could only use satellite info on someone else's terms it would be militarily disadvantageous to us.
We need to rebuild our military, our power generation, and we also need locally produced coal for the steel industry.
No point grumbling that we're out. We wouldn't qualify for going back in due to the deficit rules. We wouldn't get a rebate so we'd have to pay £20bn a year instead of £9.5bn, that ain't gonna happen. We wouldn't be able to exercise our own complete sovereign foreign policy including trade. We wouldn't be able to set our own tariffs.
And you're wrong about direct foreign investment. Until recently loads of Russian gangsters invested their money in London, due to fawning bastards like Blair being extremely welcoming to them. A byproduct of that was soaring house prices in the capital.
|
|