Should We Leave the EU?

NoMorePacers · 18 Apr 2016

Saw a car with a banner saying 'Vote Leave' stuck on the back window today.

RailUK Forums

Railops · 18 Apr 2016

NoMorePacers said:
Saw a car with a banner saying 'Vote Leave' stuck on the back window today.

There are a fair few Leave posters on house windows by us, haven't seen any Remain ones at all.

NoMorePacers · 18 Apr 2016

Possibly a habit of middle-aged men from Bristol...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Railops said:
There are a fair few Leave posters on house windows by us, haven't seen any Remain ones at all.

Perhaps a sign that 'they' are winning OR the banner putter-uppers are sympathetic to Boris Johnson

Xenophon PCDGS · 18 Apr 2016

I wonder why it was felt necessary for any printed information to be sent out by either side, as the television channels will ensure that spokespeople from both camps will be paraded before us to ram their message home, ad nauseum.

With regards to the voting in the actual referendum, will we see a repeat of the usual apathy from certain segments of those allowed the vote, who don't want to break the habit of a lifetime?.....

LateThanNever · 19 Apr 2016

TheKnightWho said:
Why do you want thousands to lose their jobs by driving up business costs? Why do you want to destroy British industry?

It's something that will happen if you get want you want and wages rise. And don't pretend it won't happen again - the 80s showed how ruthless industry is with jobs.

If you don't pay people properly the economy stagnates because they've no money to spend. Sound familiar?
Instead of their current decline, wage increases would be very beneficial for the economy. And industry could make the necessary savings by stopping paying chief executives in telephone numbers, as they get so much they cannot spend it and that disadvantages the economy.

TheKnightWho · 19 Apr 2016

LateThanNever said:
If you don't pay people properly the economy stagnates because they've no money to spend. Sound familiar?
Instead of their current decline, wage increases would be very beneficial for the economy. And industry could make the necessary savings by stopping paying chief executives in telephone numbers, as they get so much they cannot spend it and that disadvantages the economy.

The question is as to how it can be afforded with the current Tory government, who aren't a big fan of subsidy.

Businesses don't pay any more than it makes sense for them to pay. If you think they could just cut the payouts to some of the fatcats at the top to raise the necessary capital I don't think you really appreciate the amounts involved. They aren't all banks paying out millions, for a start. If Port Talbot can't sustain wages at the current level, then I really think you should have a think about how they (and similar businesses) would fare given wage hikes

Also you're wrong on those with lots of money not spending it: it tends to get invested. Even if it's sitting in a bank it will get loaned out etc. I'm not saying it's right that they get paid that much, but the idea that wage disparities slow down the economy shows a fundamental failure to understand how the economy we live in functions.

yorksrob · 19 Apr 2016

TheKnightWho said:
The question is as to how it can be afforded with the current Tory government, who aren't a big fan of subsidy.

Businesses don't pay any more than it makes sense for them to pay. If you think they could just cut the payouts to some of the fatcats at the top to raise the necessary capital I don't think you really appreciate the amounts involved. They aren't all banks paying out millions, for a start. If Port Talbot can't sustain wages at the current level, then I really think you should have a think about how they (and similar businesses) would fare given wage hikes

Also you're wrong on those with lots of money not spending it: it tends to get invested. Even if it's sitting in a bank it will get loaned out etc. I'm not saying it's right that they get paid that much, but the idea that wage disparities slow down the economy shows a fundamental failure to understand how the economy we live in functions.

Ah, the old "we need to encourage excessive wealth because the wealthy business types will reinvest it in the economy" argument.

I remember when the industrial development bank (that I mentioned in an earlier post)was first mooted, the business pages were full of people decrying how it would be an inefficient way to allocate scarce capital. Funnily enough, I don't recall anyone doing any rigorous analysis of how this would compare to allowing a few big-wigs to accumulate stupid amounts of wealth and seeing how much of this ended up being usefully reinvested in the British economy (as opposed to stashed off shore or pee'd up the wall in Monaco).

As for the Port Talbot, you will probably find that it's problems are as much to do with foreign dumping of product, high energy costs and mis-allocation of carbon costs, I.e. not taking account of carbon released elsewhere, or in getting steel delivered from elsewhere, as it has to do with paying people a decent wage.

TheKnightWho · 19 Apr 2016

yorksrob said:
Ah, the old "we need to encourage excessive wealth because the wealthy business types will reinvest it in the economy" argument.

I remember when the industrial development bank (that I mentioned in an earlier post)was first mooted, the business pages were full of people decrying how it would be an inefficient way to allocate scarce capital. Funnily enough, I don't recall anyone doing any rigorous analysis of how this would compare to allowing a few big-wigs to accumulate stupid amounts of wealth and seeing how much of this ended up being usefully reinvested in the British economy (as opposed to stashed off shore or pee'd up the wall in Monaco).

As for the Port Talbot, you will probably find that it's problems are as much to do with foreign dumping of product, high energy costs and mis-allocation of carbon costs, I.e. not taking account of carbon released elsewhere, or in getting steel delivered from elsewhere, as it has to do with paying people a decent wage.

Do you think that big-wigs just hide money under the bed, then? Do you think all that money just sits there doing nothing? I'm all for redistribution of wealth for a better society, but at least understand the system you oppose. The idea that the rich hoard and do nothing with money is factually inaccurate and economically illiterate.

And yes, Port Talbot's problems are down to the foreign dumping of product, which proves my point: leaving the EU won't put Britain's businesses in a better position in a global marketplace. It will just increase their costs.

miami · 19 Apr 2016

yorksrob said:
As for the Port Talbot, you will probably find that it's problems are as much to do with foreign dumping of product

Which the EU tried to block with tarrifs (like the US did) but the UK prevented.

high energy costs

Like it or loathe it we get a lot of energy from abroad, in the region of 40-50%. A strong pound keeps these costs lower, but on the flip side hurts our export business.

Leaving the EU may cause the pound to crash (it's been falling steadilly over the last 4 months), which could help exports, but cause major problems with our energy use.

Domestically, A weak pound will come with high interest rates (benefiting the wealthy at the expense of people with mortgages), and will mean not being able to afford power bills let alone imported goods. Industry will struggle as they find the cost of energy soars, leading to a downward spiral.

On the plus side many dead pensioners means lower running costs on what remains of the NHS.

However we may be lucky and the markets may decide that leaving the EU is a good thing, and we won't go into a depression.

Railops · 19 Apr 2016

paulweaver said:
On the plus side many dead pensioners means lower running costs on what remains of the NHS.

Can't believe you've written that.

TheKnightWho · 19 Apr 2016

Railops said:
Can't believe you've written that.

Black humour.

Xenophon PCDGS · 19 Apr 2016

paulweaver said:
On the plus side many dead pensioners means lower running costs on what remains of the NHS. However we may be lucky and the markets may decide that leaving the EU is a good thing, and we won't go into a depression.

Having reached the age of 71 and after reading your comments about dead pensioners, I can assure you that I certainly now have "gone into a depression"..

Has any one read the novel "Logan's Run" where 21 was the age when all at that age were put to death by a pleasure-inducing toxic gas? Even that was too much for the film makers when it came time to make the film of the book and the death age in the film was raised to 30 and in a ceremony called "Carousel" (Not sure of the spelling used in the film).

Why not use the age of 30 for life termination, which will "further reduce the costs of the NHS"?

miami · 19 Apr 2016

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Having reached the age of 71 and after reading your comments about dead pensioners, I can assure you that I certainly now have "gone into a depression"..

Has any one read the novel "Logan's Run" where 21 was the age when all at that age were put to death by a pleasure-inducing toxic gas? Even that was too much for the film makers when it came time to make the film of the book and the death age in the film was raised to 30 and in a ceremony called "Carousel" (Not sure of the spelling used in the film).

Why not use the age of 30 for life termination, which will "further reduce the costs of the NHS"?

I have no problem with maintaining a strong economy and funding the NHS, although given the increasing costs of care, medical bills, and pensions I feel that whacking up inheritance tax would be a fairer way to pay for it than reducing benefits to disabled people. You may disagree.

However the fact remains that a collapsing pound will mean far more people in fuel poverty, especially the elderly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11382808/Winter-death-toll-to-exceed-40000.html

The cold weather death toll this winter is expected to top 40,000, the highest number for 15 years.
The figures were described as a tragedy for the elderly by campaigners who warned that not enough was being done to protect pensioners from unnecessary deaths in cold weather.
Malcolm Booth, chief executive of the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners, said: Excess winter deaths look like rising above the exceptional 2008-09 total and potentially reaching above 40,000 - and that is a disaster for the elderly in Britain.

If the markets decide to let the pound collapse due to an EU exit, that number can only increase.

LateThanNever · 19 Apr 2016

TheKnightWho said:
Do you think that big-wigs just hide money under the bed, then? Do you think all that money just sits there doing nothing? I'm all for redistribution of wealth for a better society, but at least understand the system you oppose. The idea that the rich hoard and do nothing with money is factually inaccurate and economically illiterate.

And yes, Port Talbot's problems are down to the foreign dumping of product, which proves my point: leaving the EU won't put Britain's businesses in a better position in a global marketplace. It will just increase their costs.

The rich do hoard as the Panama papers prove! And by investing in assets they just drive up asset prices - look at the price of housing. How does this benefit the economy?

I'd be careful of economic illiteracy: the velocity of money is nil when you save - in effect you destroy money. That's why it harms the economy.

The marketplace, even the global marketplace, has rules. The fact that its second largest participant is communist never seems to worry the neoliberal capitalists who persist in the delusion that individual greed somehow transforms the world into a caring sharing success. It needs the current government to enforce the rules so as to protect their voters' jobs, and not to be continually in awe of 'the market'. The market is not an act of God - it's a human construct!

TheKnightWho · 19 Apr 2016

LateThanNever said:
The rich do hoard as the Panama papers prove! And by investing in assets they just drive up asset prices - look at the price of housing. How does this benefit the economy?

I'd be careful of economic illiteracy: the velocity of money is nil when you save - in effect you destroy money. That's why it harms the economy.

The marketplace, even the global marketplace, has rules. The fact that its second largest participant is communist never seems to worry the neoliberal capitalists who persist in the delusion that individual greed somehow transforms the world into a caring sharing success. It needs the current government to enforce the rules so as to protect their voters' jobs, and not to be continually in awe of 'the market'. The market is not an act of God - it's a human construct!

They do hoard, but that money isn't sitting there doing nothing. I am not in favour of tax evasion, but the idea that it's mountains of coins sitting in a vault not doing anything for the economy is false. Banks are the engine of the economy (and we can see how when they fail): they need money to lend. Regulation is necessary to prevent them overreaching and the like, of course, but it's false to think of economies like your own personal account, with money just sitting there unused when you aren't spending it. (In fact, your own bank will lend out your money etc.)

And on China you're simply wrong. It is not communist by any definition of the word. Plus if you think our own government will protect jobs you've got another thing coming: Britain is shifting away from low-tech manufacturing and primary resource extraction, and those who want to leave the EU to try and save a ship that is sinking in the ocean of the global marketplace (that is here to stay whatever we decide) is the equivalent of patching up a hole with toilet paper.

LateThanNever · 19 Apr 2016

TheKnightWho said:
They do hoard, but that money isn't sitting there doing nothing. I am not in favour of tax evasion, but the idea that it's mountains of coins sitting in a vault not doing anything for the economy is false. Banks are the engine of the economy (and we can see how when they fail): they need money to lend. Regulation is necessary to prevent them overreaching and the like, of course, but it's false to think of economies like your own personal account, with money just sitting there unused when you aren't spending it. (In fact, your own bank will lend out your money etc.)

And on China you're simply wrong. It is not communist by any definition of the word. Plus if you think our own government will protect jobs you've got another thing coming: Britain is shifting away from low-tech manufacturing and primary resource extraction, and those who want to leave the EU to try and save a ship that is sinking in the ocean of the global marketplace (that is here to stay whatever we decide) is the equivalent of patching up a hole with toilet paper.

Oh dear - banks do not need any savings money at all to lend. They create it out of thin air as the Bank of England tells us http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publ...lletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
Look up Professor Richard Werner - Barclays even printed their own money to lend to the Quatari investors to recapitalise themselves in 2008.

I'd like to know your definition of communism - but let's settle on statist capitalism. This gives them lots of power compared with our own weak non-interventionist, laissez-faire capitalism. So the global marketplace, which you seem to consider to be like the weather, can be influenced at the very least by controlling it better - as the Chinese have done and as the EU, with a GDP of 1.5 times that of China could also choose to do. It would be much more popular if it did...

TheKnightWho · 19 Apr 2016

LateThanNever said:
Oh dear - banks do not need any savings money at all to lend. They create it out of thin air as the Bank of England tells us http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publ...lletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf
Look up Professor Richard Werner - Barclays even printed their own money to lend to the Quatari investors to recapitalise themselves in 2008.

I'd like to know your definition of communism - but let's settle on statist capitalism. This gives them lots of power compared with our own weak non-interventionist, laissez-faire capitalism. So the global marketplace, which you seem to consider to be like the weather, can be influenced at the very least by controlling it better - as the Chinese have done and as the EU, with a GDP of 1.5 times that of China could also choose to do. It would be much more popular if it did...

Most banks can't create money out of thin air, and even those that can are tightly regulated (the Bank of England doesn't decide these things on whim): just because it's a fiat currency doesn't mean you get to declare all money that isn't cold hard cash fictionalised, and then come to whatever conclusions you like out of it. For a start, you seem to be confusing central banks with commercial ones! If what you were saying were true then it literally wouldn't matter who hoarded money, since the banks could always lend more anyway. I have actually got some education in this area, so platitudes and half-understandings of matters aren't going to fly.

And the PRC is certainly authoritarian, but it absolutely is not communist in remotely the meaning of the word. For a start, private enterprise is allowed. And you seem to have painted me as some kind of worshipper of laissez-faire, free-for-all ultra-capitalism, which (if you read my posts properly) you would see that I'm not, since I repeatedly say less inequality and more regulation is good. However, I don't think that fantasies about optimal market conditions and driving wages up whilst creating more business are possible, however much control we have over domestic affairs.

Welly · 19 Apr 2016

What is the EU for and what is it's ambition?

As I understand it, the EU wishes that all the member states eventually become regions of a European superstate in the same way as Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Dorset etc are shires of England. History shows even this wasn't done peacefully.

How long will this ambition take? As slowly as it takes to fool the ordinary European people that nothing is happening. Jean Monnet one of the founders advised this.

How will so many different states with their different languages, culture, laws and history be able to work together in the same way as the United States of America? Several countries are currently taking massive punishment (eg Greece) in order to be part of the single currency Eurozone - how much longer will it take before they are all equal?

Would you like your sons to receive call up papers with the EU Ring of Yellow flag on the envelope rather than OHMS?

As desirable as a single European superstate sounds, I struggle to imagine this happening without strife somewhere in Europe in the future - even the United States had a big civil war during the 19th Century before becoming a nation.

This unrealistic desire to become a superstate is why I am voting to leave.

meridian2 · 19 Apr 2016

TheKnightWho said:
Do you think that big-wigs just hide money under the bed, then? Do you think all that money just sits there doing nothing? I'm all for redistribution of wealth for a better society, but at least understand the system you oppose. The idea that the rich hoard and do nothing with money is factually inaccurate and economically illiterate.

And yes, Port Talbot's problems are down to the foreign dumping of product, which proves my point: leaving the EU won't put Britain's businesses in a better position in a global marketplace. It will just increase their costs.

But it would ensure that we have total control of the operation of our businesses. These 'extra costs' are piecemeal, and have been proven to be by our trading with countries outside of the EU.

As for Port Talbot, last time I checked the reasons cited for TATA pulling out were 'imports of Chinese steel, high energy costs, and work demand' so despite you saying businesses costs would increase if we would leave, the ongoing situation at Port Talbot would debunk the idea that there is correlation between leaving the EU and higher costs/overheads. And that is from a country that isn't even in the EU.

miami · 19 Apr 2016

Welly said:
What is the EU for and what is it's ambition?

As I understand it, the EU wishes that all the member states eventually become regions of a European superstate in the same way as Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Dorset etc are shires of England. History shows even this wasn't done peacefully.

That was certainly Winston Churchill's vision. I'm not sure such a political entity makes much sense in today's modern world of devolution. Some decisions are best made at a global level, some at a continental level, some at a national level, some at a regional level, some at a local level.

How will so many different states with their different languages, culture, laws and history be able to work together in the same way as the United States of America?

How indeed? The culture is very similar actually, certainly a DINKY in London will have more in common with a DINKY in Amsterdam than a sheep farmer in rural Cumbria. There's a far greater chasm between say the US and the UK, and even more of a chasm between Japan, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or China and the UK.

Several countries are currently taking massive punishment (eg Greece) in order to be part of the single currency Eurozone - how much longer will it take before they are all equal?

Probably shortly after Cornwall is equal to London.

Would you like your sons to receive call up papers with the EU Ring of Yellow flag on the envelope rather than OHMS?

I'm against conscription in both cases. If military action is essential, I'm not sure it matters who calls the shots, as long as they're competent and are working for a democratically elected government that has the whole of it's population in mind.

As desirable as a single European superstate sounds, I struggle to imagine this happening without strife somewhere in Europe in the future - even the United States had a big civil war during the 19th Century before becoming a nation.

This unrealistic desire to become a superstate is why I am voting to leave.

There was plenty of European strife before the EU/EC/etc. What was the average time between a war involving France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK on opposite sides. 20-30 years? Nothing since 1945.

There will be internal strife of course, the world is changing, and the normal people of Europe (and America), with a long time of being very priviliged on a global basis, are seeing struggles in the face of a global reality.

I'm not sure how leaving Europe would prevent that. I can see how clubbing together with very similar people would help though.

yorksrob · 19 Apr 2016

TheKnightWho said:
Do you think that big-wigs just hide money under the bed, then? Do you think all that money just sits there doing nothing? I'm all for redistribution of wealth for a better society, but at least understand the system you oppose. The idea that the rich hoard and do nothing with money is factually inaccurate and economically illiterate.

If you'll indulge my "economic illiteracy" for a while, but let us imagine for a while where our billionaire is likely to put his money and what proportion of this is likely to end up usefully in the British economy.

Off-shore funds. The Governments don't even know where this is invested, so we will have to discount anything that finds its way here.

The City of London, notorious for for making money on the other side of the world and selling out for a fast buck, but not so good at investing in and nurturing British industry. I remember listening to the Today programme last year and hearing the economics commentators wondering why Britain lacked the sort of middle sized companies which elsewhere would grow into multinationals (answer, they all get flogged off before they have the chance to grow). Will Hutton's "The State We're In" might have been written twenty years ago,but nothing much has changed. I suppose at least some of that might make its way back to the economy via a pension fund. Eventually.

They could invest in the property market, which seems to be as much about creating inflation and intercepting scarce resources such as housing so that people who need to actually live there can't afford it.

They might invest in a good old institution like a bank. Only as the quantitative easing episode has shown, they seem pretty rubbish at investing in business, even when they are provided with zero's specifically to do that.

Perhaps they'll start up another business. But then again, I wonder how many of the super rich are Richard Branson type polymath's and how many are one trick pony's. And that suggests that ordinary people, given decent access to finance, aren't just as capable of starting up businesses themselves. One suspects that they might even be more "hungry" for the success in some circumstances.

No. I'm afraid that giving a small number of people ridiculous amounts of money is a very inefficient way of allocating scarce resource.

TheKnightWho · 19 Apr 2016

Badger89 said:
But it would ensure that we have total control of the operation of our businesses. These 'extra costs' are piecemeal, and have been proven to be by our trading with countries outside of the EU.

As for Port Talbot, last time I checked the reasons cited for TATA pulling out were 'imports of Chinese steel, high energy costs, and work demand' so despite you saying businesses costs would increase if we would leave, the ongoing situation at Port Talbot would debunk the idea that there is correlation between leaving the EU and higher costs/overheads. And that is from a country that isn't even in the EU.

But it doesn't. It ensures that we could prop them up if we wanted to, but that isn't going to happen; deluding ourselves over possibilities whilst ignoring reality is as bad as the people who think we should leave the EU so we can establish some kind of social utopia: it ain't gonna happen.

The extra costs are also not piecemeal. With a much smaller labour market available, wages will have to go up - when you have thousands of employees, that will cause businesses that are already struggling to go under without government help, which won't be forthcoming. That's aside from the fact that that labour remaining in Eastern Europe (or wherever) means that production costs will be even cheaper there, compounding the problems for British export.

And on Port Talbot - as I have said above - the issue with the Chinese steel dump proves my point: Britain will not be able to prevent these kinds of events, and driving up business costs only makes them more vulnerable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

yorksrob said:
If you'll indulge my "economic illiteracy" for a while, but let us imagine for a while where our billionaire is likely to put his money and what proportion of this is likely to end up usefully in the British economy.

Off-shore funds. The Governments don't even know where this is invested, so we will have to discount anything that finds its way here.

The City of London, notorious for for making money on the other side of the world and selling out for a fast buck, but not so good at investing in and nurturing British industry. I remember listening to the Today programme last year and hearing the economics commentators wondering why Britain lacked the sort of middle sized companies which elsewhere would grow into multinationals (answer, they all get flogged off before they have the chance to grow). Will Hutton's "The State We're In" might have been written twenty years ago,but nothing much has changed. I suppose at least some of that might make its way back to the economy via a pension fund. Eventually.

They could invest in the property market, which seems to be as much about creating inflation and intercepting scarce resources such as housing so that people who need to actually live there can't afford it.

They might invest in a good old institution like a bank. Only as the quantitative easing episode has shown, they seem pretty rubbish at investing in business, even when they are provided with zero's specifically to do that.

Perhaps they'll start up another business. But then again, I wonder how many of the super rich are Richard Branson type polymath's and how many are one trick pony's. And that suggests that ordinary people, given decent access to finance, aren't just as capable of starting up businesses themselves. One suspects that they might even be more "hungry" for the success in some circumstances.

No. I'm afraid that giving a small number of people ridiculous amounts of money is a very inefficient way of allocating scarce resource.

1) Off-shore funds don't sit there doing nothing. If they did, the banks that hold them wouldn't be able to survive (they have to lend out money too).

2) The City of London is not meaningfully separable from the banks here. And if you want me to give you an explanation of why the banks crashed I will, but saying the banks are bad at investing a) completely misunderstands what caused the global financial crisis (the subprime mortgage crisis), and b) completely fails to understand how ordinary people get capital to spend in the first place.

3) Your point about the property market simply doesn't make sense. Investment does not cause inflation.

4) Not all new businesses are experimental and entrepreneurial (i.e. carry large amounts of risk) . In fact, most aren't.

You're also still comparing the situation we have to some perfect idealised possibility that will somehow materialise if we leave the EU: again, this is comparing apples to oranges, when we will have the same Tory government upon leaving.

NY Yankee · 19 Apr 2016

Welly said:
What is the EU for and what is it's ambition?

As I understand it, the EU wishes that all the member states eventually become regions of a European superstate in the same way as Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Dorset etc are shires of England. History shows even this wasn't done peacefully.

How long will this ambition take? As slowly as it takes to fool the ordinary European people that nothing is happening. Jean Monnet one of the founders advised this.

How will so many different states with their different languages, culture, laws and history be able to work together in the same way as the United States of America? Several countries are currently taking massive punishment (eg Greece) in order to be part of the single currency Eurozone - how much longer will it take before they are all equal?

Would you like your sons to receive call up papers with the EU Ring of Yellow flag on the envelope rather than OHMS?

As desirable as a single European superstate sounds, I struggle to imagine this happening without strife somewhere in Europe in the future - even the United States had a big civil war during the 19th Century before becoming a nation.

This unrealistic desire to become a superstate is why I am voting to leave.

Economically, staying in the EU makes sense. I think it's ideal for the Western European nations to have a single currency and to trade amongst themselves. Doing so is beneficial for all of the countries. The EU also facilitates travel between the respective countries. For example, the UK and France collaborated when they built the Chunnel- and it was mutually beneficial.

I have two pet peeves in regards to the EU. The first is that the more affluent Western European countries have to support the poorer Eastern European countries. The second is that if one of the members adopts a policy (EX: taking in Syrian migrants), then the other members are obligated to adopt that policy as well. A country that is a member of the EU should still have autonomy in regards to their own government.

yorksrob · 19 Apr 2016

TheKnightWho said:
But it doesn't. It ensures that we could prop them up if we wanted to, but that isn't going to happen; deluding ourselves over possibilities whilst ignoring reality is as bad as the people who think we should leave the EU so we can establish some kind of social utopia: it ain't gonna happen.

The extra costs are also not piecemeal. With a much smaller labour market available, wages will have to go up - when you have thousands of employees, that will cause businesses that are already struggling to go under without government help, which won't be forthcoming. That's aside from the fact that that labour remaining in Eastern Europe (or wherever) means that production costs will be even cheaper there, compounding the problems for British export.

And on Port Talbot - as I have said above - the issue with the Chinese steel dump proves my point: Britain will not be able to prevent these kinds of events, and driving up business costs only makes them more vulnerable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

1) Off-shore funds don't sit there doing nothing. If they did, the banks that hold them wouldn't be able to survive (they have to lend out money too).

2) The City of London is not meaningfully separable from the banks here. And if you want me to give you an explanation of why the banks crashed I will, but saying the banks are bad at investing a) completely misunderstands what caused the global financial crisis (the subprime mortgage crisis), and b) completely fails to understand how ordinary people get capital to spend in the first place.

3) Your point about the property market simply doesn't make sense. Investment does not cause inflation.

4) Not all new businesses are experimental and entrepreneurial (i.e. carry large amounts of risk) . In fact, most aren't.

1) It's not much use if the funds don't go into the British Economy.

2) My point about the investments of the City wasn't to do with the 2008 crash, rather a longer term problem of short termism as opposed to investing in British industry.

3) If you have ever larger amounts of money chasing a finite resource, that resource will become scarcer and its price will become inflated. Not a problem with diamonds or paintings, but a very big problem for something as vital as housing.

4) Whether a new business is experimental or not, if it takes place in Britain, it is beneficial to the economy. Also, not all people who are paid very large sums of money do so out of being experimental or taking large amounts of risk, and arguably they are no more likely to come up with an experimental idea than anyone else, therefore I restate my point that paying a small number of people very large amounts of money is a very inefficient way of allocating resources.

miami · 19 Apr 2016

NY Yankee said:
I have two pet peeves in regards to the EU. The first is that the more affluent Western European countries have to support the poorer Eastern European countries.

Yes, many people like you are also peeved that the more affluent London has to support poorer regions like Cornwall

The second is that if one of the members adopts a policy (EX: taking in Syrian migrants), then the other members are obligated to adopt that policy as well. A country that is a member of the EU should still have autonomy in regards to their own government.

I'm not aware of any such rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

States the numbers of Syrian Refugees asylum applicants (and relative to population), from most inhospitable (very few migrants) to most hospitable (many migrants)

The UK has 8,792 (1 in 7,200)
Spain has 8,365 (5,500)
Finland has 1,127 (1 in 4,800)
Norway has 11,246 (1 in 460)
Germany has 218,816 (1 in 370)
Cyprus has 3,185 (1 in 360)
Sweden has 105,889 (1 in 92)
Serbia has 313,035 (1 in 22)

That's a massive range, with the UK, Spain and Finland taking an order of magnitude less than Germany.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

yorksrob said:
1) It's not much use if the funds don't go into the British Economy.

2) My point about the investments of the City wasn't to do with the 2008 crash, rather a longer term problem of short termism as opposed to investing in British industry.

3) If you have ever larger amounts of money chasing a finite resource, that resource will become scarcer and its price will become inflated. Not a problem with diamonds or paintings, but a very big problem for something as vital as housing.

4) Whether a new business is experimental or not, if it takes place in Britain, it is beneficial to the economy. Also, not all people who are paid very large sums of money do so out of being experimental or taking large amounts of risk, and arguably they are no more likely to come up with an experimental idea than anyone else, therefore I restate my point that paying a small number of people very large amounts of money is a very inefficient way of allocating resources.

How will leaving the EU solve any of these problems? The EU is generally more left-wing than UK governments (as the left is fractured, the voting system helps in this fashion, as it doesn't allow parliaments representing a minority of public support to pass bills).

I fail to see how any Labour supporter could back leaving the EU.

yorksrob · 19 Apr 2016

paulweaver said:
Which the EU tried to block with tarrifs (like the US did) but the UK prevented.

Like it or loathe it we get a lot of energy from abroad, in the region of 40-50%. A strong pound keeps these costs lower, but on the flip side hurts our export business.

Leaving the EU may cause the pound to crash (it's been falling steadilly over the last 4 months), which could help exports, but cause major problems with our energy use.

Domestically, A weak pound will come with high interest rates (benefiting the wealthy at the expense of people with mortgages), and will mean not being able to afford power bills let alone imported goods. Industry will struggle as they find the cost of energy soars, leading to a downward spiral.

On the plus side many dead pensioners means lower running costs on what remains of the NHS.

However we may be lucky and the markets may decide that leaving the EU is a good thing, and we won't go into a depression.

On the first point, that's certainly true as far as I can see, and the EU's greater willingness to stand up to mis-behaving multinationals certainly goes in the pro column.

With regard to high energy bills, I stand by my point made earlier in the thread that our over-reliance on the common market in energy is indeed a weakness and that we need to be aiming for more self-sufficiency in that sector.

LateThanNever · 19 Apr 2016

TheKnightWho said:
Most banks can't create money out of thin air, and even those that can are tightly regulated (the Bank of England doesn't decide these things on whim): just because it's a fiat currency doesn't mean you get to declare all money that isn't cold hard cash fictionalised, and then come to whatever conclusions you like out of it. For a start, you seem to be confusing central banks with commercial ones! If what you were saying were true then it literally wouldn't matter who hoarded money, since the banks could always lend more anyway. I have actually got some education in this area, so platitudes and half-understandings of matters aren't going to fly.

And the PRC is certainly authoritarian, but it absolutely is not communist in remotely the meaning of the word. For a start, private enterprise is allowed. And you seem to have painted me as some kind of worshipper of laissez-faire, free-for-all ultra-capitalism, which (if you read my posts properly) you would see that I'm not, since I repeatedly say less inequality and more regulation is good. However, I don't think that fantasies about optimal market conditions and driving wages up whilst creating more business are possible, however much control we have over domestic affairs.

No, if you read the link ALL private banks create money out of thin air when they create loans. So it may not matter who hoards money. But ONLY if the banks lend properly.They don't. Almost 90% of those loans are for property. That creates the property bubble. So they lend very little for anything productive and even then want property security! So they are pretty useless.
And before 2008 they lent to themselves to invest in derivatives as a quick win, which the taxpayer is now picking up.
The German banks have a much more social outlook. Profit isn't the only aim.
So may I suggest a little less faith in 'the market' and a universal try to get the EU modelling on the successful Germans, who have a very different banking model, to be in the market with a social outlook?

TheKnightWho · 19 Apr 2016

yorksrob said:
On the first point, that's certainly true as far as I can see, and the EU's greater willingness to stand up to mis-behaving multinationals certainly goes in the pro column.

With regard to high energy bills, I stand by my point made earlier in the thread that our over-reliance on the common market in energy is indeed a weakness and that we need to be aiming for more self-sufficiency in that sector.

Yet again, you're putting what-ifs against reality: we are constructing almost double-digits of HVDCs to improve power inter-connection throughout Europe. This makes sense as part of the EU, as a common energy market means lower prices for everyone as power can be best redirected to where it is needed, and economies of scale can be created.

Banging on about fortress Britain and self-sufficiency isn't going to achieve anything. Are we just going to fire up tens of coal powerplants again?

yorksrob · 19 Apr 2016

paulweaver said:
How will leaving the EU solve any of these problems? The EU is generally more left-wing than UK governments (as the left is fractured, the voting system helps in this fashion, as it doesn't allow parliaments representing a minority of public support to pass bills).

I fail to see how any Labour supporter could back leaving the EU.

As I've pointed out on several occasions, I haven't made up my mind yet.

However, I do fear that the EU is going in the wrong direction with grandiose projects such as the single currency needlessly impoverishing fellow member states.

I also see the promotion of ever liberalised market economics as a threat to countries right to run public services as they see fit (4th rail package, postal union etc). Something of which Tony Benn and Barbara Castle were rightly wary of.

I also think there are some problems that will need a national solution to sort out, for which the EU is an obstacle (I think we'll need to restrict ownership of housing in London to residents as happens in Denmark, however I'm not convinced we'll be able to obtain a treaty opt-out.

TheKnightWho · 19 Apr 2016

LateThanNever said:
No, if you read the link ALL private banks create money out of thin air when they create loans. So it may not matter who hoards money. But ONLY if the banks lend properly.They don't. Almost 90% of those loans are for property. That creates the property bubble. So they lend very little for anything productive and even then want property security! So they are pretty useless.
And before 2008 they lent to themselves to invest in derivatives as a quick win, which the taxpayer is now picking up.
The German banks have a much more social outlook. Profit isn't the only aim.
So may I suggest a little less faith in 'the market' and a universal try to get the EU modelling on the successful Germans, who have a very different banking model, to be in the market with a social outlook?

Don't patronise me. Banks do not create money by lending: they transfer capital to where it can be spent; they are not "creating money out of thin air". If you look, the central banks create money, but this is heavily regulated by government.

And I am perfectly aware of what happened in the subprime mortgage crisis. However, I'd really like to see evidence for 90% of loans being mortgages!

Should We Leave the EU?

Do you believe the UK should stay in or leave the EU?

Stay in the EU

Leave the EU

I don't know

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member