|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 7:13:50 GMT
I am not interested in the internal production and sale of widgets. It pales into insignificance when billions of pounds worth of services are generated in the UK and sold abroad. According to WIKI the service sector accounted for 82% of the UK's GDP during the last 12 months. That includes 8% of financial services. You are embarrassing yourself now - 'Services' include things like Lloyds, banking, insurance etc etc.  |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 11, 2023 8:16:26 GMT
I am not interested in the internal production and sale of widgets. It pales into insignificance when billions of pounds worth of services are generated in the UK and sold abroad. According to WIKI the service sector accounted for 82% of the UK's GDP during the last 12 months. That includes 8% of financial services. You are embarrassing yourself now - 'Services' include things like Lloyds, banking, insurance etc etc. I just spent five minutes discussing insurance and banking. Did you not understand what i wrote? In fact it should be a source of shame that the biggest contributor to its GDP is domestic consumption. It indicates that the UK is not taking advantage of all those profits that can be made by exporting. It is not executing TRADE as it should do. It means that there is not enough productivity or global competitive advantage. Both China and the USA became hugely wealthy by producing enough to EXPORT. Trade is the two way movement of goods (import and export plus modification of imports to then export, the source of VAT,) and services for profit. Now i suggest you stop making a fool of yourself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 8:22:11 GMT
I am not interested in the internal production and sale of widgets. It pales into insignificance when billions of pounds worth of services are generated in the UK and sold abroad. According to WIKI the service sector accounted for 82% of the UK's GDP during the last 12 months. That includes 8% of financial services.You are embarrassing yourself now - 'Services' include things like Lloyds, banking, insurance etc etc. Sorry to barge in.. Oracle75 says that the total amount of service sector trade was 82% of the UK GDP. And 8% was Financial Services. Which appears to be correct. You, on the other hand, argue that exports of goods and services amounted to 28% based on your chart. But you're not reading from the same page or you seem to be misunderstanding the argument: he is talking about Trade as a component of GDP while you're talking about Exports. But let's not forget that Trade comprises imports and exports while " Contribution to GDP" includes trade plus associated taxes paid to HMRC and other contributions. He's arguing about the whole while you are countering with a fraction of that whole, so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 11, 2023 8:43:35 GMT
Well your chief economist Pacifico thinks the vast majority of businesses do not export. That enough profit can be made by internal trade. The UK doesnt have to sell to half a billion EU citizens but also 80 other countries. Sales to 67 million Brits is all the UK needs to trade. I suggest he not only read up on how insurance companies work but how international finance and investment works since the largest part of the UK's GDP used to be in financial services. No wonder he voted to leave the EU. He shows such a sparkling understanding of how trade works. Laughable indeed. Your knowledge of economics certainly is laughable. Total exports of goods and services amounts to 28% of GDP - if you want to believe that exports account for the majority of UK economy then you are totally clueless.  You're talking to Kim. We established Kim's cluelessness on the old board. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 11, 2023 8:44:27 GMT
Well as the whole purpose of trade is imports the Treasury view is quite sensible - although I struggle to believe that anything that comes out of the Treasury is sensible. Imports, and exports for that matter, are trade activities, but the purpose of trade is to achieve economic prosperity. Hence, the need for a country to determine whether to liberalise or regulate its trade with rest of the trading world.
If it determines that domestic products need to be protected for the sake of the industry and of the economy as a whole without jeopardising its international trade relations, then taking a protectionist stance is very much in order.Not if said industry is running at a loss and in need of government subsidies. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 11, 2023 8:45:49 GMT
I am not interested in the internal production and sale of widgets. It pales into insignificance when billions of pounds worth of services are generated in the UK and sold abroad. According to WIKI the service sector accounted for 82% of the UK's GDP during the last 12 months. That includes 8% of financial services. You are embarrassing yourself now - 'Services' include things like Lloyds, banking, insurance etc etc. 41% of our exports go to the EU, that's just 11.27% of GDP. And remoaners treat Brexit as if its the end of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 11, 2023 8:52:03 GMT
You are embarrassing yourself now - 'Services' include things like Lloyds, banking, insurance etc etc. 41% of our exports go to the EU, that's just 11.27% of GDP. And remoaners treat Brexit as if its the end of the world. The argument here seems to be trade deals are bad, but we need more trade. lol It's a lot of nonsense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 10:19:48 GMT
Imports, and exports for that matter, are trade activities, but the purpose of trade is to achieve economic prosperity. Hence, the need for a country to determine whether to liberalise or regulate its trade with rest of the trading world.
If it determines that domestic products need to be protected for the sake of the industry and of the economy as a whole without jeopardising its international trade relations, then taking a protectionist stance is very much in order.Not if said industry is running at a loss and in need of government subsidies. Yes, but the premise of my statement is "all things being equal" as in: All things being equal, "if it has been determined that domestic products need to be protected ...... taking a protectionist stance in very much in order." However, at any rate, what you are saying falls within my earlier statement such that "if said industry is running at a loss and in need of government subsidies", "there is a need for a country to determine whether to liberalise or regulate its trade." So there should be no argument there. Unless you have a problem with the process itself of determining or choosing whether to liberalise or regulate trade? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 10:27:20 GMT
41% of our exports go to the EU, that's just 11.27% of GDP. And remoaners treat Brexit as if its the end of the world. The argument here seems to be trade deals are bad, but we need more trade. lol It's a lot of nonsense. No. There is no argument that the trade deals are bad or practically useless. Eustice's argument is that the Truss trade deals were negotiated based on the ideology of trade liberalisation, i.e., liberalise trade for the sake of liberalisation. Personally, I say that Truss trade deals were based on the Brexit idea of showcasing our ability to negotiate our own trade deals, no matter how bad the trade deals are. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 11, 2023 11:18:46 GMT
The argument here seems to be trade deals are bad, but we need more trade. lol It's a lot of nonsense. No. There is no argument that the trade deals are bad or practically useless. Eustice's argument is that the Truss trade deals were negotiated based on the ideology of trade liberalisation, i.e., liberalise trade for the sake of liberalisation. Personally, I say that Truss trade deals were based on the Brexit idea of showcasing our ability to negotiate our own trade deals, no matter how bad the trade deals are. Of course any country needs more trade. Trade is profit/higher taxation/employment if companies know what they are doing. Anyway this is just another thread in where if some dont understand they either change the subject or dont answer. Trade is not buyimg in cheaper than you cam make it yourseld. What a bizarre idea. It is also selling at competitive prices taking into account all costs. I am off to find somewhere where all the participants know what they are talking about and dont swim in a cesspit of ignorance. It seems Truss had as much knowledge about trade as thry do. And she lost out to a lettuce |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 11:41:14 GMT
I just spent five minutes discussing insurance and banking. Did you not understand what i wrote? In fact it should be a source of shame that the biggest contributor to its GDP is domestic consumption. It indicates that the UK is not taking advantage of all those profits that can be made by exporting.It is not executing TRADE as it should do. It means that there is not enough productivity or global competitive advantage. Both China and the USA became hugely wealthy by producing enough to EXPORT.Trade is the two way movement of goods (import and export plus modification of imports to then export, the source of VAT,) and services for profit. Now i suggest you stop making a fool of yourself. No - now you are being a compete idiot. The US exports of goods and services only accounts for 10% of their GDP - compared with 28% in the UK and 29% in France. Is every developed country in the world failing according to you? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 11:42:53 GMT
You are embarrassing yourself now - 'Services' include things like Lloyds, banking, insurance etc etc. Sorry to barge in.. Oracle75 says that the total amount of service sector trade was 82% of the UK GDP. And 8% was Financial Services. Which appears to be correct. You, on the other hand, argue that exports of goods and services amounted to 28% based on your chart. But you're not reading from the same page or you seem to be misunderstanding the argument: he is talking about Trade as a component of GDP while you're talking about Exports. But let's not forget that Trade comprises imports and exports while " Contribution to GDP" includes trade plus associated taxes paid to HMRC and other contributions. He's arguing about the whole while you are countering with a fraction of that whole, so to speak. try reading the thread again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 12:38:06 GMT
Sorry to barge in.. Oracle75 says that the total amount of service sector trade was 82% of the UK GDP. And 8% was Financial Services. Which appears to be correct. You, on the other hand, argue that exports of goods and services amounted to 28% based on your chart. But you're not reading from the same page or you seem to be misunderstanding the argument: he is talking about Trade as a component of GDP while you're talking about Exports. But let's not forget that Trade comprises imports and exports while " Contribution to GDP" includes trade plus associated taxes paid to HMRC and other contributions. He's arguing about the whole while you are countering with a fraction of that whole, so to speak. try reading the thread again. I've read it a few times already -- and understood it. Maybe you could be a little less vague and direct me to the specific point to which you refer. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 11, 2023 16:00:04 GMT
Well as the whole purpose of trade is imports the Treasury view is quite sensible - although I struggle to believe that anything that comes out of the Treasury is sensible. I am calling out Pacifico on this statement he made early in the thread. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. And i will not be drawn off course by his attempts to change the subject in the hope that we will forget his ridiculous comment. Profits and a smile on the Treasury's face comes from SALES outsizing imports. Imports COST MONEY in tariffs and transport. Other than imported raw materials used to produce something which you can sell at a profit internally or externally, the Treasury makes nothing on imported goods. It makes money on the SALE of imported goods, internally or externally. This is primary school stuff! |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 17:07:05 GMT
try reading the thread again. I've read it a few times already -- and understood it. Maybe you could be a little less vague and direct me to the specific point to which you refer. No - you still do not understand. Start again - what is the primary purpose of trade?. Adam Smith and David Ricardo might help. |
|
