Brexit

[wufwugy]

From that wiki, love me some Milton Friedman:

Europe exemplifies a situation unfavourable to a common currency. It is composed of separate nations, speaking different languages, with different customs, and having citizens feeling far greater loyalty and attachment to their own country than to a common market or to the idea of Europe.

— Milton Friedman, The Times, November 19, 1997"

[wufwugy]

Biases are subtle. From the Vox article:

In principle, then, the solution to the euro’s problems is to create a "United States of Europe" with a shared, Europe-wide budget that could help to cushion economic shocks within the EU. The problem is that no one in the EU seems interested in making the leap.

That is not the only option. The other is to get rid of the euro. Good policies can be made that don't consist of increasing government power.

[Savy]

The article briefly addresses this only in part:



The most important considerations for what makes an optimum currency area are labor mobility, capital mobility and price/wage flexibility, fiscal transfer capacity, and business cycle similarity. The fiscal transfer thing is if the EU collected taxes from its members and could redistribute them to suffering regions. The EU does not have this. Labor mobility depends heavily on things like common language and common culture. Europe suffers with this. In the US, it's not a big deal to move from state to state looking for work, but in Europe it is actually a big deal to move from the UK to France or from Spain to Austria or whatever.

But taxation is theft and discourages optimal solutions? Sounds like some left wing give money to the poor bullshit you're so massively against. I'm kind of joking in my phrasing of the question but I don't see how it's not genuinely against a lot of what you say.

I also don't understand at what point that breaks down or if the optimal solution eventually when globalisation has fully taken effect would be for one currency and everyone being connected. I don't understand the terms used well enough I suppose & I imagine economists don't really have a clue either as it's complicated as fuck.

edit - That wiki link says the US shouldn't all be one currency, interesting. I was also right in thinking that arbitrary lines (i.e. countries) aren't necessarily good at the job either.

[wufwugy]

But taxation is theft and discourages optimal solutions? Sounds like some left wing give money to the poor bullshit you're so massively against. I'm kind of joking in my phrasing of the question but I don't see how it's not genuinely against a lot of what you say.

It's because governments have monopolies on currencies. This means that to optimize the functioning of their currencies, they also need the fiscal redistribution mechanism.

I can't say what I think an optimum currency area would look like in a totally free market that includes a free market of currencies. Probably what would happen is that people would (maybe) hold more than one kind of currency, and they would hold the ones that work best for their regions. This would negate any need for fiscal redistribution (which is obviously something that couldn't be done in the first place since there wouldn't be governments). So, for example, a totally free market US would probably have people choosing different currencies in the Deep South than they do in the NYC area.

It should also be noted that currencies in a free market of currencies would very likely be MUCH more stable. This means more variation of people could hold the same currency.

[MadMojoMonkey]

mojo is more pedantic than I am, and that's saying something.

I was watching the football the other day, and the commentator said "their goalkeeper isn't the tallest in the world", to which I said to my friend "what a stupid phrase, only one goalkeeper is". I get the impression than watching footie with mojo would be even more tedious than with me.

Prob. not. Since the one thing you can almost always assume I'm not thinking about is sports, there's little likelihood that I'll even notice what the announcer said. Also, what the announcer said was prob. true, so why argue with it, anyway. The announcer could have said, "There's a lovely blue sky today." Would you get your panties in a bind over that, too?


Besides, wufwugy would be making much more robust and convincing arguments if he used less hyperbole, and I believe that making robust and convincing arguments is something which wuf likes to do and would like to improve at.

[OngBonga]

Also, what the announcer said was prob. true, so why argue with it, anyway.

Of course it was true, he wasn't even the tallest goalkeeper on the pitch. I'll argue with it because a) I like arguing, and b) it's a stupid phrase.

The announcer could have said, "There's a lovely blue sky today." Would you get your panties in a bind over that, too?

Probably, I'd wonder who's paying their wages for them to talk utter shite.

What wuf said might be hyperbole, I didn't read it in detail and I don't care to. But the phrase he used is common, just as the commentator's phrase is, so you pulling him up on it is equally as pedantic as me moaning about the commentator stating the obvious.

[JKDS]

Besides, wufwugy would be making much more robust and convincing arguments if he used less hyperbole, and I believe that making robust and convincing arguments is something which wuf likes to do and would like to improve at.

This is the prevailing view, btw. Hyperbole and inexact statements serve to muddy an argument. You'll actually find that when you remove this kind of stuff, gaps in logic become incredibly apparent, permitting stronger, truer arguments to be made.

[wufwugy]

Thanks for the advice. Some examples would be great.


Part of what I think is going on is that the more "conversational" things are, the more I exaggerate. For example, in conversation I use "the best" all the time. I've probably called two hundred different movies "the best" in purely conversational situations. However, when engaging in amateur academic discussion of film, I don't do that.

[wufwugy]

On the topic of optimum currency area, I think the UK would fare better on the dollar than the euro.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm more optimistic this will be positive or neutral at worst. No facts to support this assertion, maybe personal disposition or naivety.




Buck up buttercup, there's always hope. I say that even as an american given our current "choices".

P.S. The market basically recovered, at least in the states.

I'm not worried about me, that comment I made back at ong was a bit facetious because I didn't really care why I was so interested in the choice of the Britons. I just think it was a dumb choice for them to make.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-pictures.html

The Chinese have an interest in the EU market place, as the Chinese usually learn English as a second language and English is the language of business across the world, there may have been some interest in establishing London as their waylay into that 500m strong market. Guess some state officials will have to pick up a third language. Those Chinese are notorious fans of stability.

[a500lbgorilla]

BoJo says No. I wonder what Nigel Farage will do... oh right, shit on the EU in Assembly.

God, I hate this noise.

[a500lbgorilla]

He's great, though

[a500lbgorilla]

Interesting though, that his first and main point to the EU was about war-refugees.

Hell of a problem, that civil war is.

[a500lbgorilla]

"If you were to cut off your noses to spite your faces..."

"Even no deal is better for the UK, than the deal we've got."

I hear a man that knows how to speak much better than he knows how to anything-else.

[a500lbgorilla]

Holy shit. He literally just says "fuck the world, we'll do it ourselves!" with no sense of what that means.

[a500lbgorilla]

.

Enough!, we want to make our own laws, we want to control our own borders!

But don't pretend anyone is going to war over this. War, historically, has nothing to do with borders or citizenship or sovereign control, if I'm to understand it at all.

[Keith]

On the topic of optimum currency area, I think the UK would fare better on the dollar than the euro.

come on wuf , you claim to be ecomically aware but no idea that we have the £ as our currency and never had the euro ."

as for

I can't say what I think an optimum currency area would look like in a totally free market that includes a free market of currencies. Probably what would happen is that people would (maybe) hold more than one kind of currency, and they would hold the ones that work best for their regions. This would negate any need for fiscal redistribution (which is obviously something that couldn't be done in the first place since there wouldn't be governments). So, for example, a totally free market US would probably have people choosing different currencies in the Deep South than they do in the NYC area.

It should also be noted that currencies in a free market of currencies would very likely be MUCH more stable. This means more variation of people could hold the same currency.

have you never heard of currency speculation. if regions of a country use different currencies you remove central banks as they have no nned to support multiple currencies ,By removing central banks, you remove a central plank stabilizing the value of a currency which will mean that the pump and dump currency speculation will become rampant making currency values extremely volatile.

[Keith]

The article briefly addresses this only in part:



The most important considerations for what makes an optimum currency area are labor mobility, capital mobility and price/wage flexibility, fiscal transfer capacity, and business cycle similarity. The fiscal transfer thing is if the EU collected taxes from its members and could redistribute them to suffering regions. The EU does not have this. Labor mobility depends heavily on things like common language and common culture. Europe suffers with this. In the US, it's not a big deal to move from state to state looking for work, but in Europe it is actually a big deal to move from the UK to France or from Spain to Austria or whatever.

Again you are deluded claiming that the Eu does not have fiscaltransfer and redistribution to suffering regions. Why do you think the $350m per week claim was used in the referendum campaign?. It was a false figure as thats what we send europe and ignore what we get back. The net figure is that we send about £160m per week which is then redistributed to the poorer countries.
You claim that Europe doesn't have labour mobility, have you had your head stuck in the sand?It may be a big deal for brits to move abroad to likely poorer paid jobs and the language barrier as you claim but thats not the general labour flow thats occuring. What is happening is that people from poorer eastern european members of the Eu are moving to uk germany france etc to take up jobs in higher paying economies, similar to mexicans trying to get into the USA with the wage benefits and english/french as a second language encouraging that flow.

[a500lbgorilla]

The EU is ridiculously fucked, and the UK wanted out, which is rational enough.

Feels b4 reals, amirite?

[Savy]

come on wuf , you claim to be ecomically aware but no idea that we have the £ as our currency and never had the euro ."

as for

have you never heard of currency speculation. if regions of a country use different currencies you remove central banks as they have no nned to support multiple currencies ,By removing central banks, you remove a central plank stabilizing the value of a currency which will mean that the pump and dump currency speculation will become rampant making currency values extremely volatile.

The first bit he wasn't saying we are in the Euro just that he thinks the things defining a optimum currency area would mean that the dollar > euro if we were to join one even though we're much closer to Europe.

The other bit is interesting, I have no idea about these things so will give me something to read into later.

I agree with your other post that Wuf thinks that culturally the other parts of the EU & the UK are much more different than they really are. Especially when there is still a reasonable amount of first generation migrants it only really gets better with time.

[wufwugy]

come on wuf , you claim to be ecomically aware but no idea that we have the £ as our currency and never had the euro ."

I never claimed the UK is on the euro.

have you never heard of currency speculation. if regions of a country use different currencies you remove central banks as they have no nned to support multiple currencies ,By removing central banks, you remove a central plank stabilizing the value of a currency which will mean that the pump and dump currency speculation will become rampant making currency values extremely volatile.

A free market of currency would not remove central banking; it would change who the central bankers are.

Again you are deluded claiming that the Eu does not have fiscaltransfer and redistribution to suffering regions. Why do you think the $350m per week claim was used in the referendum campaign?. It was a false figure as thats what we send europe and ignore what we get back. The net figure is that we send about £160m per week which is then redistributed to the poorer countries.

EU fiscal redistribution mechanisms are far more constrained than the US's.

You claim that Europe doesn't have labour mobility, have you had your head stuck in the sand?It may be a big deal for brits to move abroad to likely poorer paid jobs and the language barrier as you claim but thats not the general labour flow thats occuring.

Your second sentence undercuts your first sentence. Europe in fact has poorer labor mobility than the US. You are correct that it is usually a big deal for a Brit to move out of Britain for work; at least it's a bigger deal than similar is in the US.

Immigration and labor mobility are not the same thing.

[wufwugy]

BoJo says No. I wonder what Nigel Farage will do... oh right, shit on the EU in Assembly.

God, I hate this noise.

What's wrong with shitting on people who are throwing democracy down the river?

It isn't just via the unaccountable bureaucracy route, but by cultural engineering. Do this: turn the entire world into a federation and give everybody the vote. Then watch as our prosperous western democracies turn into socialist, welfarist, anti-free-enterprise, religious fundamentalism hellholes overnight.

[a500lbgorilla]

What's wrong with shitting on people who are throwing democracy down the river?

Democracy is hard.

It isn't just via the unaccountable bureaucracy route, but by cultural engineering. Do this: turn the entire world into a federation and give everybody the vote. Then watch as our prosperous western democracies turn into socialist, welfarist, anti-free-enterprise, religious fundamentalism hellholes overnight.

so... democracy is bad?

[a500lbgorilla]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...0160627?page=2

[a500lbgorilla]

I haven't pretended that the choice of the Britons should be un-made, just that it was dumb. If I'm right or wrong, or most likely some mix of the two, I still respect the choice they've made.

[a500lbgorilla]

My hope

Scotland leaves the UK
Scotland rejoins the EU
England joins Scotland as a United Kingdom
England is part of the EU

OK, I pretended a little bit.

[a500lbgorilla]

A free market of currency would not remove central banking; it would change who the central bankers are.

Isn't this kinda the beauty of democracy? That no matter the institution, the leaders can be upturned and swept out by simple consensus alone?

Isn't this also the danger of democracy? That no matter the institution, the leaders can be upturned and swept out by simple consensus alone?

[a500lbgorilla]

Isn't this kinda the beauty of democracy? That no matter the institution, the leaders can be upturned and swept out by simple consensus alone?

Isn't this also the danger of democracy? That no matter the institution, the leaders can be upturned and swept out by simple consensus alone?

Cut off enough heads and even the Hydra dies.

edit This seems like the magical belief of democracy - no leaders, no experts, no insiders necessary. If you know what you're doing, but you aren't doing it like we want, we'll sweep your ass out. If you don't know what you're doing, but we're happy to see you doing it, we'll elect you again.

[OngBonga]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it wasn't dumb for us to leave. If the UK was a strong, thriving economy, then yes it would have been risky enough to consider it dumb. But our economic growth has been particularly stangnant through most of my adult life. We certainly have not been thriving within the EU. Our industry has been mostly replaced with services and commerce. Are we to be satisfied with sluggish growth in a service based economy, or is it reasonable to put that at risk in the hope of greater long term benefits?

Our vote is bad for the EU, but it isn't bad for the UK. It's bad for the EU because our economic loss is their economic gain... and vice versa.

The FTSE 100 is now at a 5-year high. I'd like to think this is an indication that it wasn't so dumb after all.

Yes it was risky, perhaps very risky, but risky is not dumb. How you react to the risks is what determines how dumb your decision was.

[a500lbgorilla]

I apologize for the 'dumb' stuff. It's just the cudgel I swing at what I don't like.

[a500lbgorilla]

Our vote is bad for the EU, but it isn't bad for the UK. It's bad for the EU because our economic loss is their economic gain... and vice versa.

All profits for one are demerits for another? It's certainly an interesting question to explore.

But our economic growth has been particularly stangnant through most of my adult life. We certainly have not been thriving within the EU. Our industry has been mostly replaced with services and commerce. Are we to be satisfied with sluggish growth in a service based economy, or is it reasonable to put that at risk in the hope of greater long term benefits?

Same for me, though, I'm a bit fortunate as I make better than the average house-hold income in America. Though, still, my yearly raises are always shit. It's why I'm always looking to change jobs while, at the same time, I hate the idea of changing jobs.

[OngBonga]

I apologize for the 'dumb' stuff. It's just the cudgel I swing at what I don't like.

No need for apologies, you can call us dumb all you like. America is dumb too for voting in Bush a second time after he blatantly stole the first election, I'm more than capable of insulting an entire nation!

All profits for one are demerits for another? It's certainly an interesting question to explore.

That was a very sweeping generalisation, but yeah, one man's profit is another man's loss. The EU is basically attempting to balance the economies of member states... thus, the stronger economies are essentially paying to boost the weaker economies. Go to Poland and see all their new roads, and ask who paid for it all. Not that I necessarily have a problem with this... improving Poland's transport infrastructure can reap benefits for us in the long term if we're planning on exporting goods through Poland. But having wealthy members paying into a pot to help out the poor countries in the bloc not only stifles our output, but gives weaker economies little incentive to strengthen. Their motivated citizens can get work all over Europe, so they have little incentive to set up a local business which helps improve their own economy.

Free trade is obviously a good thing. I'm not so sure about free movement of people. I can clearly see the benefits of it, but when it's unlimited, it can be a negative thing for member states while being good overall for the EU as a whole. That's where the problem lies really. People do not see the EU as fair, certainly the 52% in Britain don't anyway.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That was a very sweeping generalisation, but yeah, one man's profit is another man's loss.

This is, in general, the opposite of the truth in business. The whole point of business is to provide something that someone else wants so you can trade them for something you want. If it's not win-win, then you're both doing it wrong. One of the lessons that blew my mind was hearing this from successful businessmen. It's not about getting for yourself and screwing your business partners. You can screw the competition, but not your partners.

However, I agree that it gets a little fuzzy when you're talking about taxation to redistribute wealth among a people. It all hinges on the people feeling like they are one. If the people do not feel they are one people, then the altruistic support of the less wealthy is offensive.

You touch on a good point about long-term benefits of altruistic redistribution, though. Where would any of us be if not for receiving help that we maybe didn't deserve from time to time? I'm guessing most of us repayed those debts plus interest. With intelligent, capable people a bit of a cushion is usually all they need to be a stopgap while they figure out what was going wrong and fix it.

[CoccoBill]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it wasn't dumb for us to leave. If the UK was a strong, thriving economy, then yes it would have been risky enough to consider it dumb. But our economic growth has been particularly stangnant through most of my adult life. We certainly have not been thriving within the EU. Our industry has been mostly replaced with services and commerce. Are we to be satisfied with sluggish growth in a service based economy, or is it reasonable to put that at risk in the hope of greater long term benefits?

You seem convinced these are all due to the EU, do you have any proof or examples of this? The move from manufacturing to service production has been a global trend in the first world countries for decades, simply due to production costs. Just as an example, the UK shoe production industry is looking to be in big trouble, the British brands are expecting 30% production cost hikes for made in UK shoes in the future due to higher import levies, weakened pound and higher materials costs.

[OngBonga]

This is, in general, the opposite of the truth in business.

You'd be right if we're talking about a business-consumer relationship, at least you'd be right in principle, even if maybe not in practise. But we're not talking about business-customer, we're talking about a competing economy relationship.

If it's not win-win, then you're both doing it wrong.

Indeed, and we've recognised we're doing it wrong, even if most of Europe is yet to reach this realisation.

You can screw the competition, but not your partners.

Right, so this for me is about determining if as a member state of the EU, we're in competition with other member states, or in partnership with them. It seems to me the former, because we're subject to rules beyond our democratic control that impacts upon our economic competetiveness at the expense of the rest of Europe. Case example would be the fishing industry, which is utterly on it knees as a result of EU quotas that hand our territorial waters as defined by international law to the Dutch. The EU, I read somewhere, was paying British fishermen to destroy their vessel. Why should Dutch fishermen be fishing the waters three miles off Newcastle? That's like Canada fishing off North Carolina while Americans sit and watch helplessly. The Dutch, as fellow member states, are competing with us, not in partnership with us. Incidentally, there's a good chance they'll leave the EU in the coming years, and if they do, they would naturally become genuine partners of the UK, which would be very much welcome. The only competition we should have with the Dutch is quality and price competition, not competition for EU quotas and favourable regulations.

[Keith]

A free market of currency would not remove central banking; it would change who the central bankers are.

how can central banks work if they are not working on an exclusively national /international basis enacting national fiscal policy and setting interest rates.If you break them down to regional central banks you also split their reserves down limiting their ability to withstand currency speculation making the currency volatile.

EU fiscal redistribution mechanisms are far more constrained than the US's.

bit of a fluffy statement , care to give examples?

Your second sentence undercuts your first sentence. Europe in fact has poorer labor mobility than the US. You are correct that it is usually a big deal for a Brit to move out of Britain for work; at least it's a bigger deal than similar is in the US.

Immigration and labor mobility are not the same thing.

rubbish . use the same analogy ,english ,scots welsh and irish will move around the UK to find work just as yanks move around yankee land.how many yanks move to mexico to find work (except poker players) compared with the number of mexicans working in USA,which is exactly the same effect as uk workers not moving to europe but lots of eastern europeans moving to the UK to find work

[OngBonga]

You seem convinced these are all due to the EU, do you have any proof or examples of this?

It certainly coincides with EU membership, at the least. Our economy has been in decline since WWII, relative to the world, with periods of boom. Meanwhile, Germany has seen exceptional growth. They we more in debt after the war than we were, and they much more rebuilding. They thrived because they were less regulated than we were after the war, we were too slow to pass control back to business. Since the EU, we've been unable to deregulate because we're subject to their regulations.

Being in the EU does not harm a nation by default, it depends if the regulations and quotas are an advantage or not for a particular state. For us it is a disadvantage, demonstrated by our relative poor economic performance compared to other member states, and the decline of industry and agriculture.

The move from manufacturing to service production has been a global trend in the first world countries for decades, simply due to production costs.

I realise this is not a trend exclusive to the UK, but it's not one I'm comfortable with.

The weaker pound means that our exports have become more competetive. Their higher import levies can be negated by trade agreements with nations with similar currency performance. We don't need to be in the EU to take advantage of global trade... it might help a great deal with continental trade, but the world is much, much bigger than Europe.

It's a matter of time now before Britain leads a Nordic bloc of nations who wish to trade with Europe. Those who leave the EU in the future will join us. In time, I can see the total collapse of the EU, replaced with a free trade bloc of politically and economically independant nations. The Euro might or might not survive, I have no idea if it can in such a model.

[!Luck]

The FTSE 100 is now at a 5-year high. I'd like to think this is an indication that it wasn't so dumb after all.

You do realize that this is driven by currency devaluation?

[OngBonga]

You do realize that this is driven by currency devaluation?

In what sense? It *appears* to be performing well because the weak pound makes companies *appear" to be more valuable? Or actually more valuable because of increase in export demands?

[wufwugy]

Isn't this kinda the beauty of democracy? That no matter the institution, the leaders can be upturned and swept out by simple consensus alone?

My previous point was that the path the UK was on (and still is on) diminishes this.

A successful democracy requires a certain type of citizen. Immigration from certain cultures undercuts that. The other element I mentioned is the unelected undemocratic bureaucracy in the EU. This also exists in other governments like our own. Our democracy is in many ways undemocratic, and I don't think it's a good idea to make that even worse.

[wufwugy]

how can central banks work if they are not working on an exclusively national /international basis enacting national fiscal policy and setting interest rates.If you break them down to regional central banks you also split their reserves down limiting their ability to withstand currency speculation making the currency volatile.

Central banks don't do fiscal policy. Monetary policy is changing the money supply to achieve other desired effects. They can handle reserves and speculation just fine.

bit of a fluffy statement , care to give examples?

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-resear...rnment-states/

In fact, as the EU was formed in the early 1990s, many economists doubted its viability because it lacked a stabilization system similar to that in the United States

linkransfers consist of grants to state and local governments and direct payments to businesses, nonprofit organizations, and individuals,

A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation based on our results suggests that if the European Union had a system similar to that of the United States, Greek nominal disposable income per capita would have fallen 6.9% from 2008 to 2011 instead of the actual 11.2%.

Regardless, I don't recommend this tax and transfer system as a solution for EU woes. This is just one of the important reasons why a monetary union is a bad idea.

rubbish . use the same analogy ,english ,scots welsh and irish will move around the UK to find work just as yanks move around yankee land.how many yanks move to mexico to find work (except poker players) compared with the number of mexicans working in USA,which is exactly the same effect as uk workers not moving to europe but lots of eastern europeans moving to the UK to find work

Yeah, and this is example of the EU not having good labor mobility. The UK has similar labor mobility to the US, but the EU does not.

[wufwugy]

one man's profit is another man's loss.

MMM's observation is correct. Voluntary transactions are not zero-sum. The observation is correct at the "competing economy" level too.

[wufwugy]

You seem convinced these are all due to the EU, do you have any proof or examples of this? The move from manufacturing to service production has been a global trend in the first world countries for decades, simply due to production costs. Just as an example, the UK shoe production industry is looking to be in big trouble, the British brands are expecting 30% production cost hikes for made in UK shoes in the future due to higher import levies, weakened pound and higher materials costs.

To jump in on this in response to Ong, exports are not "good" while imports are "bad." It depends on why they happen.

If the UK were to unilaterally deregulate trade and work visas to the degree that they accept any import and any laborer and they will sell to any country willing to buy, what we would expect to see is some of the existing export industries having a bit of trouble, but the rest of the economy would boom like crazy. You could probably predict exports to initially drop while imports rise greatly, but then along with that would come a bunch of new capital and new forms of exports.

The EU is wrong in its trade protectionism when it tries to protect its exports, and the UK is too. The political issue is that voters put a great deal of effort into protecting existing export dynamics even though doing so is worse for the economy.

[Keith]

Central banks don't do fiscal policy. Monetary policy is changing the money supply to achieve other desired effects. They can handle reserves and speculation just fine.

they don't make policy but they are the ones to implement it, if you have a portion of the USA using the euro another portion using the pound under your currency market , do you think that bank of england or european central bank will give a shit what effect their implementation will have on those US regions.IF those regions used their own independent currency their reserves will inevitably be smaller making them less able to resist currency speculation.

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-resear...rnment-states/

Seems surprisingly ignorant that there actually is a form of tax and redistribution for EU finances.

The EU budget is funded from three main sources: Member State contributions, based on a percentage of their Gross National Income. Import duties on goods entering from outside the EU. A percentage of each Member State's national VAT rate.

larger richer economies pay in more becuase of the % of gross National income, typically will be importing more tariffed goods and there will be higher domestic consumption leading to higher VAT income.Budget is then redistributed via capital investment projects/ business grants etc and CAP & lower income countries will typically have a higher agricultural receipt from the CAP as agriculture makes up a greater % of their GDP.

Regardless, I don't recommend this tax and transfer system as a solution for EU woes. This is just one of the important reasons why a monetary union is a bad idea.

but tax and transfer system is already in place but works on government level rather than directly on individuals.

Yeah, and this is example of the EU not having good labor mobility. The UK has similar labor mobility to the US, but the EU does not.

why don't you understand that that the majority of labour mobility is due to economic migration and by definition far more people will move from lower income economies to higher income economies to better themselves than move in the reverse direction.even in the UK the same principle work domestically with net flow from countryside to cities and from poorer regions to richer regions

[!Luck]

In what sense? It *appears* to be performing well because the weak pound makes companies *appear" to be more valuable? Or actually more valuable because of increase in export demands?

Pre-exit vote:
Exchange rate: 1.5 British Pounds per US dollar (this would normally done against a basket of currencies, simplified to make my point)
Company ABC is worth 100 British Pounds
Company ABC is worth 150 US Dollars


Post-exit vote:
Exchange rate: 1.3 British Pounds per US Dollar
Company ABC is worth 115 British Pounds
Company ABC is worth 150 US Dollars

Your currency was devalued by ~15%, thus if companies are still worth the same amount due to let's say having most of their assets and profits coming from US currency, they would HAVE to appreciate just to maintain value from a global perspective.

The above illustrates that just cause FTSE appreciated in local currency doesn't mean what it would normally mean.

The demand for exports also plays into this, but i think the primary reason it moved was due to currency not demand change.

[Keith]

ftse rise was a response to bank of England Governor saying that post brexit vote economic outlook had deteriorated and may involve an interest rate cut to stimulate the economy, leading to cheaper borrowing /lower debt repayments and possibly stimulated demand from consumers.Bank shares are still depressed .

[OngBonga]

Your currency was devalued by ~15%, thus if companies are still worth the same amount due to let's say having most of their assets and profits coming from US currency, they would HAVE to appreciate just to maintain value from a global perspective.

Yeah I mean I only really thought about this when you pulled me up on it. I just saw a recovery in stocks and didn't really think about why that was other than a recovery of confidence.

I guess I'll have to wait for longer before I can make the call that it's not an economic disaster. I'm still optimistic for the long term though.

[The Bean Counter]

Interesting piece on Osborne's plans to cut corp tax from 20% to 15% to encourage FDI:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36699642

[wufwugy]

Interesting piece on Osborne's plans to cut corp tax from 20% to 15% to encourage FDI:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36699642

Good stuff. This is what we expect to see when countries have to compete with each other. I'm excited to see how much Europe can improve if other countries leave the EU.

[CoccoBill]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/...xplained-maybe

[The Bean Counter]

Good stuff. This is what we expect to see when countries have to compete with each other. I'm excited to see how much Europe can improve if other countries leave the EU.

Indeed. The UK may not need to be so drastic given English fluency and being well positioned between India and US time zones however. That said, our corp tax rate at 20% is currently only in-line with the rest of Europe, so we may need to cut to encourage investment given our high cost of labour and our message to the rest of the world that we don't like foreigners (useful tool here for comparing tax rates if anybody is interested: https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/ser...es-online.html).

Cutting the corp tax rate won't necessarily be good for UK employment though. Increasingly, skilled, desk-based jobs are now being moved to Eastern Europe by UK companies. That said, the Eastern Europe wages are accelerating quickly and the gains could be short lived. Staff turnover in Eastern Europe and India is high as employees can frequently move jobs for additional pay.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/...xplained-maybe

Interesting read. I'm sure the rest of the world thinks the UK is a total shambles at the moment.

[spoonitnow]

Ahahahahah fuck the EU

[The Bean Counter]

Intersting chart on EU nationals living in the UK. Surprised to see a couple of nation so high (Portugal, Latvia), but doubt anybody is surprised by the Polish proportion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...he-eu-36745584

[a500lbgorilla]

A very interesting read on the two factions of Brexit: Metropolitan Citizens of the World -v- Provincial Natives of the Nation

https://mereorthodoxy.com/political-...uture-britain/

In 1991, London’s population was 79.8% white (White British and other white subgroups). London is now a city whose population is predominantly non-White British (London’s White British population was less than 45% in 2011, down from 58% in 2001) and in large measure composed of people who weren’t even born in the UK (37% born outside of the UK and 24.5% born outside of Europe). Londoners increasingly seem to think of themselves, not as English or even British, but as world citizens.

In many parts of the country where the population is overwhelmingly White British, genetic study has revealed the remarkable stability of their population over at least the last 1400 years (Celtic populations in the British Isles date back over a millennium more). One can still trace the borders of ancient kingdoms in the genetics of regional populations.

Thinking in terms of individual meritocracy, cosmopolitans often lack sympathy for marginal workers in regions whose jobs and local economies are threatened by globalization and the ‘free movement of labour’. They tend to privilege the imperatives of the market over the stability and endurance of communities.

Those with a more provincial perspective resent Britain’s cosmopolitan elite for the cultural invisibility and undignified dependency that they feel has been imposed upon them. The cosmopolitan elites privileging of the market has weakened their communities, eroded intangible goods such as solidarity, community, and belonging, and exposed them to radically destabilizing forces over which they are given no control, such as large scale immigration. They are ever more dependent upon and vulnerable to outside agencies. Older people see that, in place of the strong shared culture and tradition of labour in the past, a rootless younger generation is growing up with a deep anomie, cut loose from old solidarities, and living an alienated existence, increasingly defined by consumer goods, the depersonalized realities of mass society, and state dependency. The true wealth of many working class communities—the accumulated social capital of shared ways of life and labour built up over centuries—has been ravaged by the social fragmentation wrought by a market driven society and the mass immigration it encourages.

Cosmopolitans tend to be post-nationalist supporters of the market state. A market state is a neoliberal entity, which typically maximizes the market choices and autonomy of all persons within it, whether citizens or not. The borders of such a state are largely open and function on little more than an administrative level. Individual opportunity, unrestricted choice, and validated autonomy are core values and, consequently, freedom of movement between nations is prized.

The EU is the epitome of a neoliberal political entity, committed to free markets, encouraging the unrestricted movement of undifferentiated labour, and upholding the value of the socially fungible self-defining individual. ... The weakening of national sovereignty, democratic accountability, and political representation is all part of a larger picture in which bankers and transnational corporations are empowered and the forces that would resist them are enervated.

In the UK and elsewhere, recent indiscriminate immigration has frequently been experienced as a very negative and socially fragmenting phenomenon, harming the host culture, with genuine integration never truly occurring. Resistance to undifferentiated and uncontrolled immigration—frequently confused with resistance to immigration as such—is widely attributed to racism, yet such resistance often arises, not primarily from hatred of persons from different countries themselves, but from recognition that such unmanaged immigration has a track record of eroding communal identities that support people’s belonging.

The repeated failure of multiculturalism has exposed the unwelcome truth that, although persons can be displaced and populations atomized, they cannot so easily be homogenized.

Britain’s unique geographical situation and historical development means that it tends to relate to the European project quite differently from countries such as Germany or France. The historian and author of the recent critically lauded tome The English and Their History, Robert Tombs, was a striking exception to the overwhelming support for Remain among academics. Tombs argues that on account of our peculiar national character, Brexit may have been inevitable. Rather than regarding a federal Europe as a defence against the recurrence of historical conflict, maintaining a degree of disunity in Europe has generally been in Britain’s national self-interest (as satirized in this classic Yes Minister clip). Furthermore, Tombs maintains that Britain’s tradition of democratic sovereignty contrasts with the greater determination of national policy by an elite in many European nations.

The ethics of cosmopolitans are ethics of universal benevolence, equality, and altruism.
...
By contrast, the ethics of more provincial persons are the ethics of filial love.

I'm just going to stop quoting the article here. It's really an incredible piece that pulls together a fuck-ton of insights.

Also, https://next.ft.com/content/b2d07188...#axzz4DnjUnwOB

Thought this was an interesting possible tact for Britain to take in EU-negotiations.

[wufwugy]

[spoonitnow]

It's too damn bad
I'm too damn good
Fuck the EU go UK woooo

[a500lbgorilla]

BoJo for foreign secretary

[The Bean Counter]

BoJo for foreign secretary

Turns out this isn't a joke! He's got an impressive track record, and that's before you think of Brexit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36792746

Could potentially be a smart move by May - keep your friends close and enemies closer.

[OngBonga]

It was probably all agreed upon before Boris pulled out. Leadsome probably only ever challenged with the intention to pull out when heads up, leaving May to become PM without a mandate. Quiet handshakes aplenty.

I think the best thing that can happen is Corbyn holds onto his position, then gets voted in to power. I suspect that really could happen. If the powers that be want him out so bad, then maybe he's doing something right. I think the people are starting to wake up to that concept.

[Keith]

i speculated Leadsome pulled out because someone dug up some dirt on her and suggested it might be a good idea if she withdrew and played party unity card and get a good job in cabinet. BoJo pulled out as he was expecting Gove to be his main backer and Gove pulled the rug from under him by declaring he was a candidate before BoJo did. There may have been some discussion between BoJo and May camps at that point where he didn't stand in exchange for a top job and stab Gove in the back for his treachery so that he got nothing .

[Savy]

i speculated Leadsome pulled out because someone dug up some dirt on her and suggested it might be a good idea if she withdrew and played party unity card and get a good job in cabinet. BoJo pulled out as he was expecting Gove to be his main backer and Gove pulled the rug from under him by declaring he was a candidate before BoJo did. There may have been some discussion between BoJo and May camps at that point where he didn't stand in exchange for a top job and stab Gove in the back for his treachery so that he got nothing .

There's something odd about it.

Boris just played his hand about as well as possible, obviously he was hoping to be leader but situations change and he's still about in arguably his most powerful position.

Leadsom dropping out so early after securing her spot as one of the final two tells me there is something wrong. Leadsom was in a solid enough position, although likely to lose, that she should have pushed it much further to see how it went. She appeals massively more to the conservative membership than May does. There was her cock up with the kids thing & she definitely has some less than squeaky clean tax practices going on but nothing worse than the standard rich people dodging tax that goes on. It also doesn't make sense for May to give her a position of power & end it all early when she was such a clear favourite to win & things looked like they were edging more in her favour.

For this to all have happened in the space of a couple of days when it was meant to be going on for months means something fishy is happening & they want the headlines filled with this shit rather than what's going on. The only thing I know of going on currently that's a bit off taste is the snooper charter they're trying to push through.

[a500lbgorilla]

A very interesting read on the two factions of Brexit: Metropolitan Citizens of the World -v- Provincial Natives of the Nation

https://mereorthodoxy.com/political-...uture-britain/




















I'm just going to stop quoting the article here. It's really an incredible piece that pulls together a fuck-ton of insights.

Also, https://next.ft.com/content/b2d07188...#axzz4DnjUnwOB

Thought this was an interesting possible tact for Britain to take in EU-negotiations.

Just wanna bump this because this article deserves to be read

[Keith]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p042...s_contentcard4

[chemist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36637037

Boris coming out and saying that they're not actually going to try and change any of the things the campaign was won on, absolutely brilliant just wanted rid of human rights laws all along.

This is actually fucking hilarious. The public have been completely duped. Only most of those who were duped don't even realise it when told.

You know we have the house of lords, right?

Nice to see some people actually understand.
(I'm surprised Cameron didn't have this ulterior motive).

The exiters are jubilant they have been conned listened to.
Democracy in a country with an unelected head of state (not provided the checks and balances since 1708), unelected upper house and an unelected prime minister.

Makes you wonder why so many people wanted to come to such a place, (but couldn't pre-brexit because of the opt out from the schengen agreement, so boarder controls and immigration was just another campaign dupe).

[OngBonga]

Noone conned me. I always wanted the fuck out of that stupid bloc, well before Boris told me any bullshit numbers.

Those who wanted out weren't conned. Statements like that only serve to demonstrate the simmering bitterness remainers have. It isn't healthy. You can moan about our democracy all you like, and I'll agree with you that it's shit. But what happened with the referendum was actual democracy, no first past the post nonsense. A straight up yes/no question, and we voted no. So now, what remainers need to do, in the politest way possible, and with all due respect, is shut the fuck up with the complaining, because it isn't going to make anything any better, all it's going to do is allow the atmopshere of polarity that was so strong before the referendum continue to thrive.

Give it ten years. That's how long it will take before we can really know if it was a stupid thing to do or not. Maybe it will take less time than that, idk. What I do know is that there is no way we can make any judgements as to the wisdom of our decision any time soon.

[rong]

The leave campaign was built on complete bullshit. People voted based on the bullshit they were told. How can such a huge decision be allowed to be influenced by blatant lies? There should be rules about this kind of thing. Given this you can't be surprised that the in camp feel a bit aggrieved.

I've said all along there were plenty of very good reasons to want to leave and I'm not 100% in the remain camp, I wanted a third option where we could give an ultimatum to the EU with a take it or leave deal offered by us which could have improved things, but that wasn't an option.

[OngBonga]

Aggrieved? Fine, but the decision has been made. Are you intending to spend the next ten years being aggrieved?

I personally don't give a crap what the leave campaign was based on, it's not like it influenced me. There was an imperial fuckton of horseshit to wade through whichever way you were thinking of voting.

If I was conned, it was only by myself. I can't speak for every leave voter, but the idea my vote was based on someone else's lies is, quite frankly, bollocks.

[chemist]

Noone conned me. I always wanted the fuck out of that stupid bloc, well before Boris told me any bullshit numbers.
...If I was conned, it was only by myself. I can't speak for every leave voter, but the idea my vote was based on someone else's lies is, quite frankly, bollocks.

Nobody said you were influenced by the bullshit.
Some people had already decided and also a lot of well informed intelligent people quite rightly voted to leave.

But there was practically no remain campaign and a very large exit campaign which was DISGUSTINGLY based on lies and bigotry which influenced a lot of uninformed people and heavily influenced the very close end result. Which in the end was more like an X factor phone in than a referendum.

The leave campaign was built on complete bullshit. People voted based on the bullshit they were told.
...there were plenty of very good reasons to want to leave...

It is a shame that the good and real reasons for Leaving or Remaining were not presented to the population.

No I am not bitter or aggrieved or moaning at the result. It makes little difference, with the knowledge I had I was still fifty fifty, so I don't really care.
I absolutely agree that first past the post and constituencies with party whips is complete quasi democratic nonsense.

With all the rubbish I have seen it was refreshing to see some sensible comments made here at ftr.

Anyway, moving on, forget quickly signing article 50 and enabling a Franco Prussian unified europe.
Better to spend the time renewing the common wealth, restoring the dairy, fisheries and agriculture
and doing all the good things that leaving make possible.
And perhaps we could take back control and use the new found national interest in politics to bring about some improvements to our democratic processes.

[wufwugy]

I wonder why there was no Remain campaign. I wonder if it could be because the trajectory the UK was on regarding the EU was hard to defend.

[chemist]

I wonder why there was no Remain campaign. I wonder if it could be because the trajectory the UK was on regarding the EU was hard to defend.

Nope, just complacency and arrogance on the part of the supporters of that position.
They didn't think they had to put much effort in, but also hadn't expected the circus and spin and funding of the exit campaign. Although there was a real failure to point out the inaccuracies being spread and just relying on mutterings about economic stability, which itself isn't entirely an accurate argument either.





btw On the topic of optimum currency area,
Are you looking for a non national currency?
There was bitcoins for a while, but it kinda lost momentum when the silk road was closed.
Currencies need something to back them up or guarantee them, like Gold, Drugs, Government, Big Bank with stacks of 'real money' in it.

[OngBonga]

But there was practically no remain campaign and a very large exit campaign which was DISGUSTINGLY based on lies and bigotry which influenced a lot of uninformed people and heavily influenced the very close end result. Which in the end was more like an X factor phone in than a referendum.

I think you're making assumptions based on what you're reading in the papers. I haven't meet a single person who voted out who did so based on the campaign. I think more people made what they consider to be an informed decision than you're giving credit for.

And there was a reamain campaign, not a very good one, but there was one, and it too was based on lies. Project fear, I think it was called. The remain campaign was basically a bunch of distorted facts and outright lies designed to scare people into voting remain.

Both camps gained votes through bullshit. It's not fair to say that only the leave campaign was playing that game. Can you tell me which of the two gained the most? Not with any shred of sincerity. I could only take a 50-50 guess.

The fact of the matter is, we can never know exactly what caused a person to vote the way the did, either way. We can't know how many were influenced by lies, nor can we know how many people voted out because they like Boris, or hate Cameron, or how many voted remain because they were scared of Scotland leaving the UK, not that it's the business of an Englishman but that's another issue.

There was so much bullshit, and it was most definitely not exclusive to the out camp.

We voted out. Had we voted stay, I'd have had a moan and then accepted it, regardless of the lies which won it. Continuing to bicker about things that are subjective is a waste of time, moreover it can only serve to cause a mood of polarity amongst the nation which is not going to help with the economic challenge ahead of us.

Now is the time for unity, otherwise we really are fucked.

[OngBonga]

Nope, just complacency and arrogance on the part of the supporters of that position.

I would agree with this. Cameron is so out of touch with the working class that he utterly underestimated the simmering resentment. Either that or he thought the working class would be easy to scare by telling them jobs would be lost if we left.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Continuing to bicker about things that are subjective is a waste of time[...]

OngBonga's account has obviously been hacked.

[wufwugy]

What were the lies of the leave campaign?

On optimum currency area, it depends. On currency itself, I argue for governments not being involved.

[rong]

Wuf, from a quick google:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b08d2c56394817