But of course a person of such privelidge and high demeanour with a posh voice must be right. — Punshhh

Apparently, it's acceptable to call for people like that to be put down. You might imagine death threats are unacceptable, but it seems not. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/04/tories-back-candidate-francesca-o-brien-benefits-street-remarks-gower

Benkei
2.1k
↪Tim3003
Good agreements are win-win propositions for the parties. So no, it doesn't balance out. — Benkei

By 'balance out' I meant that the nett of gains/losses will be the same for each side - not that neither side will gain overall.

However if you think both sides can simply agree and win, tell that to Trump and the Chinese leader. The problem is when there is a trade imbalance to start with, and the side in deficit (ie the USA) wants to redress that and gain more than it loses. The US has a 2:1 trade deficit with the UK too, so what will Trump's approach be?..

It depends if there is a meaningful vote or what the balance of MPs in the house is after the election. Perhaps the referendum result will be binding. If Corbyn can get it through these hurdles there is no reason to presume that the electorate will choose the leave option. The mood and demographic has changed a lot since 2016. — Punshhh

Sorry, but I don't understand what you say: Do you mean a meaningful (parliamentary) vote on Corbyn's new deal or the existing one? If which referendum result is binding?

By 'balance out' I meant that the nett of gains/losses will be the same for each side - not that neither side will gain overall. — Tim3003

Accept that is still not correct. If country A has a maximum gain of 100 USD and country B a maximum gain of 500 USD, should country A not enter into the trade agreement out of spite?

The problem is when there is a trade imbalance to start with, and the side in deficit (ie the USA) wants to redress that and gain more than it loses. — Tim3003

It's not established among economists whether a trade deficit is a benefit or not. The trade accounts for services and goods are a fraction of capital flows nowadays. The effects a trade deficit used to have aren't there anymore, allowing countries like the UK and US to run trade deficits for years without that causing issues for their economies.

On the far end of that spectrum is Milton Friedman who says trade deficits will never be a problem because ultimately the money will flow back; after all, dollars can only be spent in the US (more or less).

Sorry I must have rushed that post. I meant a meaningful vote on the new deal negotiated by Corbyn and his second referendum.

What I am referring to is that May's deal only required a meaningful vote because Keir Starmer had to demand a vote to secure it. It might not be required for Corbyn's deal, although the legislation will have to pass in the Commons.

Also Corbyn might be able to engineer a second referendum not requiring such parliamentary consent by having binding options on the ballot paper. Which the government would be legally required to implement. I'm no constitutional expert, so this might not be right.

Apparently, it's acceptable to call for people like that to be put down. You might imagine death threats are unacceptable, but it seems not.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/04/tories-back-candidate-francesca-o-brien-benefits-street-remarks-gower

Yes precisely, although when I read your post my first thought was that Mogg was eligible to be put down.

Mogg was eligible to be put down. — Punshhh

Works for me! But I apologise for my choice of words.

Also Corbyn might be able to engineer a second referendum not requiring such parliamentary consent by having binding options on the ballot paper. Which the government would be legally required to implement. I'm no constitutional expert, so this might not be right. — Punshhh

I think the House of Commons is the law-making body and any referendum is only advisory. Of course the House can promise beforehand to enact the decision a referendum comes back with, as David Cameron did I think. But the bill for the withdrawal is far more complex than the yes/no decision which prompts it, so it's something the govt has to work out and pass through the Commons.

Having said that, I suppose that if the referendum is held after the EU negotiations have produced a deal, at least people know exactly what they're voting for, and the govt can then in theory pass the bill quickly. But doubtless the opposition would find ways to frustrate that.

It would be truly bizzare if a Labour govt - mostly supporting Remain, held a referendum which voted to leave, and then had to pass the bill!

It's not established among economists whether a trade deficit is a benefit or not. The trade accounts for services and goods are a fraction of capital flows nowadays. The effects a trade deficit used to have aren't there anymore, allowing countries like the UK and US to run trade deficits for years without that causing issues for their economies.

On the far end of that spectrum is Milton Friedman who says trade deficits will never be a problem because ultimately the money will flow back; after all, dollars can only be spent in the US (more or less). — Benkei

I'm no economist, but in a trade deficit situation, money is flowing out of the country and goods coming in. The money doesn't depreciate - infact it can be invested by the exporter to grow, but the goods do, so isn't the country importing gradually getting poorer relative to the one exporting?

And as I said, if the US deficit with China is no problem, why is Trump pursuing a trade war to correct it? I thought Trump's rationale was that by undercutting US prices the Chinese are taking away US jobs and industries, as they flood US markets with cheap goods.

Works for me!

And for me. Mogg has gone viral now. Stormsy has said politicians actually are aliens. I agree that Mogg, Johnson and Co live on another planet.

Stupid working-class dummies burned themselves to death. I would never do such a thing.

What? Did I say something wrong?

Surely, Mogg must be a sleeper agent.

And here's another one that needs to be put down.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/nov/05/jacob-rees-mogg-is-cleverer-than-grenfell-tower-residents-tory-mp-suggests-video?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1c2Law1y7s2926y-_CFNNWJHW_objHJc-4pYodeFn97HHcn1AZEhvT-a8#Echobox=1572984514

Political Darwin award shared?

Political Darwin award shared? — Baden

I wonder if they are trying to lose?

Its delinquency, this is what the Tory party has become. The decent Tory's have jumped ship and ERG stooges have filled the gap drunk on raw power.

The Tory gaffs are coming thick and fast today.

I'm no economist, but in a trade deficit situation, money is flowing out of the country and goods coming in. The money doesn't depreciate - infact it can be invested by the exporter to grow, but the goods do, so isn't the country importing gradually getting poorer relative to the one exporting?

And as I said, if the US deficit with China is no problem, why is Trump pursuing a trade war to correct it? I thought Trump's rationale was that by undercutting US prices the Chinese are taking away US jobs and industries, as they flood US markets with cheap goods. — Tim3003

It's indeed not that simple and we can rest assured Trump doesn't know what he's talking about. If the Chinese subsidise their industry, so what? That money for subsidies has to come from somewhere so even if the price is lower in the market the costs are the same and probably even higher because the resource allocation is presumably less effective than in a market mechanism.

So you raise tariffs? Who pays for the increased prices? US citizens and companies. You subsidise your own industry? Who pays? US citizens again. The only winning strategy is to block items that are subsidised from entering your market entirely but I suspect the dependency on Chinese goods would cause chaos.

So, in fact, because the Chinese subsidise their industry we are all better off because we are buying goods more cheaply thanks to Chinese taxpayers who subsidise the lower price. The problem is only there if you think you should compete in the same market as the Chinese. When you don't there is only a net benefit.

Second, to buy Chinese goods you have to buy renmibi with dollars or pounds, so all of a sudden a lot of Chinese have dollars and pounds because they are the holders of renmibi. What are they going to do with their dollars and pounds? Sit on it? If they want to invest, they need to go back to the US or UK where they can spend dollars and pounds. Or they can buy UK or US goods. That's why you see both countries have large amounts of foreign direct investment that allows them to maintain prolonged periods with trade deficits. According to some theories that can be maintained indefinitely provided it continues to be offset by FDI.

If the Chinese subsidise their industry, so what? — Benkei

Well, once a group of companies dominate a market, new rival competing enterprises don't emerge as the ideal free market theory would predict. Real world economy doesn't work that way. You see, after forcing out other competitors from the market those previous competitors won't be competing in the R&D sector etc.

One idea of subsidies is that the country gains (or retains) a dominant position in the global market. Basically it works just as protective tariffs. Then you assume that you can ease with the subsidies later after your countries own industry is strong on it's own in the field. So the idea goes and sometimes it can happen so (like with German companies emerging from the 19th Century to compete in the global market against British goods). Typically it doesn't work like this, just look Africa, but the Chinese have been fairly good at this.

But I don't have high hopes for them: their fascist government will squash free thinking in the end and that will be their Achilles heel in the global competition.

Johnson's opening campaigning speech today. His privelidged voice sounds irresistible, he has nailed that tone of benevolent optimism, that you hear from the most skilled salesmen. But what he is saying is a word salad of hollow sound bites floundering accusations and slurs about his opponents. Naive inaccuracies about the economic realities of a hard Brexit and the vast investments he is promising for public services. " come with me", as we bring the country back together in a wave of optimism and investment. Or "go with him" (Corbyn) into division, delay, chaos and incompetence.

Interestingly he accused Corbyn of collusion with Putin, while he is refusing to publish the extensive report into Russian collusion in the 2016 referendum and democracy through social media etc.

But what he is saying is a word salad of hollow sound bites floundering accusations and slurs about his opponents. — Punshhh

You mean you're surprised? Sorry, but you're in for another 5 weeks of that from all sides. Well, maybe the Greens will talk a bit more about reality. Boris will follow Trump's optimism tactics I'm sure. Every US president seems to be elected on a 'Make America great again' platform. Getting voters to believe in you as an individual is more important than your policies nowadays because most voters don't understand the subtleties of policy. And they don't want to, they just want to find someone they can trust. This election may come down to who voters mistrust least - Corbyn or Johnson. Not an obvious choice!

Yes I do expect it from Johnson, I do get a bit angry with him though. It is interesting that you suggest Corbyn can't be trusted. Can you suggest what things he can't be trusted on? Also, you imply that he will talk nonsense, or ingage in Tory like tactics. Any example of that?

I agree with what you say about the Greens, but I don't think I can vote for them this time as I will vote tactically.

But I don't have high hopes for them: their fascist government will squash free thinking in the end and that will be their Achilles heel in the global competition. — ssu

:pray: :pray: :pray:

Blanket cynicism is understandable but is ultimately the philososphy of despair. Informed optimism lets us see a way through the mess.

It is interesting that you suggest Corbyn can't be trusted. Can you suggest what things he can't be trusted on? Also, you imply that he will talk nonsense, or ingage in Tory like tactics. Any example of that? — Punshhh

I think many voters naturally mistrust Labour spending pledges - ie how will they be paid for? I don't trust his Brexit solution will work, and I think many others won't either. Interstingly the Tories have joined Labour in the spend-spend-spend frenzy, so their main attack weapon of profligacy will be blunted. But their is also the far-left legacy that Corbyn has. No group is trusted less than the far left I think.
To be clear though, I don't think many mistrust what he says, but that he is actually able to carry out his great reforming schemes in the real world.

The Corbynite far Left is, at least nominally, openly on the side of the people. The Johnson/Cummings far Right is secretly on the side of the super-rich. As regards funding corrective policies, the notion of a balanced economy, equivalent to a household, is a collective illusion. Government could resume its responsibility for issuing money, and, instead of allowing banks to issue 97% of money as debt, could issue 100% of money as social credit. This could fund a state income to replace wages, social spending on health and education, and infrastructure.

As for Labour’s Brexit policy, it guarantees a second referendum, which would produce a more informed decision, and would therefore move the national mood towards unity and harmony. Support for having a second referendum has risen to neck and neck (for and against: 43% each).

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/would-you-support-or-oppose-holding-a-second-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-eu-to-confirm-or-reverse-britains-decision-to-leave-the-eu/

I don't live in the UK, but I'm in favor of there eventually being world unification/a one-world government... — Terrapin Station

— Terrapin Station

Dream on. That'll never work. The world is too big a place, with multiple conflicting interests. There will always be a great number of those who would oppose unification and prevent it from happening. And if it became corrupt, it would be harder to topple. That actually makes me think of The Empire in Star Wars. — S

Think instead of Star Trek’s United Earth government, which ended poverty, disease and war within fifty years.

So your reservations are with whether the Labour Party will be able to deliver their policies. Perhaps they will have problems here and there, government can be unpredictable and Brexit is a Gordian knot. I can't see much of a problem in their carrying out most of their policies and the reason why their critics can't see how they are going to pay for it is because they are wedded to the ideology of continuous reduction of taxes. It's simple, they will pay for a lot of it by raising taxes. As for Brexit, there is really only one way to resolve it with any kind of valid mandate and that is to have it decided with a referendum on precise choices.

What I am critical of the Tory's for is their contempt for democracy, constitution, parliament, the people, Europe. The fact that they are dishonest, deceptive, divisive. Their claims are nonsense and hollow, for example in Johnson's speech today he said once Brexit is done there will be hundreds of billions of pounds of investment in the country. I could quite easily continue for another page, but I will leave it at that. None of the opposition party's have sold their souls in this way.

As for Labour’s Brexit policy, it guarantees a second referendum, which would produce a more informed decision, and would therefore move the national mood towards unity and harmony. Support for having a second referendum has risen to neck and neck (for and against: 43% each). — Chris Hughes

I'm afraid I see polls like this as pointless. Remainers want another vote, leavers don't, so why even ask the question? Basically, it's close to 50-50 as it's always been. I don't think Labour's 2nd ref would work because Corbyn's negotiated 'Brexit' will not be considered Brexit by leavers, and so the poll will not get full public endorsement. Farage has already noted this. I don't see how you can hold a ref if half the population support neither of the options they're given. Most people did support the idea of and the question asked in the 1st ref, so its result has some validity.

Despite being a remainer my view (now that no deal is ruled out) is that the 1st ref's result has to be honoured. People's views have not changed enough to justify a rerun. The principle of democracy is too important for us of the 'intelligentsia' to overrule the 'ignorant' masses..

Another candidate for world's biggest arsehole. And, surprisingly, it's not Piers.



This is why people hate politicians. And somehow he just can't help himself.

Lol. Good one.