Duvaller

Been very few over recently but they have seemed louder - probably due to the lower cloud cover making the noise reflect downwards.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Emily Thornberry absolutely demolished Michael > Fallon on Marr today Brilliant. She even said > B@ll**ks. > What's that got to do with the intellectual discussion we were having about Hayek and Friedman?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Blair was a disicple of > Thatcher. We lost the engineering and > manufacturing bsse mcuh earlier. She shagged the > NW, the NE, the Midlands and South Wales then. He > may of finished it off, but certainly didn't start > it. And until Lehman Brother etc (and I am sure > that others better placed to say the warning signs > were there) things had in deed Only Got Better. > > But if we are beter at doing things than making > things then so be it. If my kids don't know what > a lathe is, does it matter? It's just not right to blame Thatcher for the UK's industrial decline. It was/is a trend that has shrunk manufacturing in many developed countries as production moved to lower cost countries. I recall visiting Buffalo NY state in the late 70's and saw mile after mile of abandoned steel works and factories- since called the rust belt. As our standard of living has improved in the UK, it is simply not feasable to pay a miner a sensible wage to dig coal out of an underground pit when coal can be imported from open cast mines at about 20% of the cost. Thatcher did not cause that and shouldn't be blamed for it. There were other significant factors that accelerated the UK's industrial decline and I will mention one here now. Having started out with a major motor manufacturer in the mid to late 60's, I saw it all unfold over the next thirty years. The single biggest tipping point was the crippling effect of militant unions running wild under a Labour government. The never-ending strikes crippled the car/van/truck/bus manufacturers financially and product quality deteriorated. Loss of profitability led to lack of product and facilities development. On top of this, we lost our export markets as cars from Japan and elsewhere were much better value. This led to the eventual demise of much of the Midlands based vehicle manufacturers with knock-on effects to associated manufacturing companies. Five jobs are lost at suppliers for every job lost by the car manufacturer., so the effect is leveraged across the whole industrial sector. Blame most of it on the likes of "Red Robbo", Arthur Scargill and other union leaders who were power hungry and had ideological and political ambitions. These are the ones that cost me my job and my pension when my employer folded. The tragedy is that younger voters have no direct experience or even knowledge of such issues. That's why Labour is always keen to lower the voting age.

Preobably being chased by a fox at the time.

I will respect your obvious sensitivity on matters relating to migration (whether illegal or not) but in return I would ask you to note carefully where I make comments about migrants and illegal immigrants. I dont "bang on" the latter and I have given you and other readrs detailled information and statistics about both in the context of remittances and other areas. If I may say, you seem to keep rcomparing remittances to GDP. This is inappropriate as remittances are essentially the flow of currency out of the UK. Aggregate remittances therefor are best related to the balance of payments/services.

According to the World Bank Bilateral Remittances Matrix the estimated remittances from the UK by migrants is ?16.5 Bn with the biggest recipient countries being Nigeria and India. I trust you will accept the World Bank's figures.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Duvalier: > > Let's take a massive over estimate and say there > are 500,000 illegal immigrants currently residing > in the UK and earning wages, all of whom are > sending back ?8000 to people traffickers. 500,000 > x ?8000 = ?4BN: UK GDP = ?2.2 trillion > > 4000000000/2200000000000 = 0.018 x 100 = 0.18% OK, for the sake of simplicity, I will take your ?4Bn as an estimated cash outflow but instead of comparing it with GDP, let's compare it to the balance of trade/services. This is running at around ?40Bn per annum. So the outflow then equates to 10% of the deficit. It impacts the trade deficit which in turn adversley influences the exchange rate of Sterling ie weakens the Pound. Furthermore it is negative investment ie loss of capital to the UK economy. As for the number of 500,000 immigrants, I think that is modest if you estimate the aggregate numbers from say the last 20 years. I have seen estimates of this at around 4.5 million. So 10% of GDP is an under estimation.

Duvalier Wrote: >>> Now we have a proliferation of Western Union >>> franchises that export that wealth of our country >>> to build villas all the way from Lithuania, >>> Pakistan and Nigeria. Rendelharris wrote: >>Why did you include Lithuania? Lithuania is a member of the EU and hence nobody from that country >>working here is an illegal immigrant. Duvaller Wrote: I did not state or even imply that workers from Lithuania were illegal immigrants. You inferred it in your eagerness to respond. >>> The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate to >>> the UK every year for work suggests that the >>> current system ain't all that bad. Many of these folks > >>make good and good on them for making the best >>> of the opportunity. They work hard and don't >>> complain. >Presumably you were mainly referring to legal immigrants there, as there are nothing like "hundreds of >thousands" of >illegal immigrants each year - indeed you seem to be approving of them for their willingness to >work hard for a >pittance. Here again you make an incorrect presumption. The consistent theme of my argument has been that people come to this country and do not whinge about the low wages like the EDPH Staff poster person. >Then suddenly you start banging on about illegal immigrants who are sending all their money back to people >traffickers and how they are a drag on the British economy. They have to repay the traffickers and that is money drained out of our economy. >By the way even if all the illegal immigrants in this country were sending back ?8000 a year (which >obviously they're >not as many are children, elderly, unemployed etc) it would come to 0.16% of our GDP >going missing. Kindly explain how you arrive at 0.16% of GDP. What is the source of your data? You said ??which obviously they're not as many are children, elderly, unemployed etc??. These, in reality, are the ones who are a burden on the education system, the NHS and the benefits system respectively. This is part of the baggage that comes with the migrants.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought exchange controls were to limit > fluctuations in currency rather than the flow of > money. > > Balance of payments is imports v exports, not > flows of cash I thought? The most common reason for having exchange controls is to eliminate or restrict the out-flow of currency ( whether its a hard or soft currency) from a particular country. The UK had severe exchange controls for several years after WW2 as the economy was in dire straights. Prior to 1979, fixed exchange rates prevailed. To maintain a stable exchange rate in these circumstances it becomes imperative for that government to achieve fiscal credibility ( ie balance the annual budget). It is also necessary to maintain balance of payments equilibrium. The classic failure of these responsibilities was with the Labour Govt of Harold Wilson which ran a budget deficit that ballooned year after year. Investors became convinced that the pound was overvalued and that the government would have to devalue. A large-scale sale of sterling began, which rapidly lost value against the dollar. In 1976 the UK govt had to go to the IMF and borrow $3.9Bn so that it could pay off foreign debts. It was the largest amount ever handed out by the IMF up to that time. Under pressure from the IMF, Sterling was massively devalued. This mismanagement of the UK finances was the reason that voters abandoned Labour and brought in 20 years of Tory rule. Thather abolished exchange controls immediately after taking office in 1979 so the money markets settled the exchange rate on an on-going basis so avoiding huge devaluations. Under this regime, any fiscal irresponsibility is punished by a steady decline in the Sterling exchange rate. Now turn the clock forward to Gordon Brown's era. He started blowing the budget after he became PM. He saw the size of the state soar from 37pc to 50pc ? a rise of 13 points. This was a faster rise than any other advanced country, over any other postwar decade. Brown started to forcefeed the state like a foie gras goose, but couldn?t squeeze enough tax from the country. So his splurge was financed by debt. Brown stood out from every other global finance minister in borrowing like crazy, during the boom. Prudence went out the window. So UK finances were in a precarious state when the global crash struck in 2007/8. Sadly, every single Labour government we have ever had ? from Ramsay MacDonald to Gordon Brown ? has left an economic mess behind them. Brown was the worst of the lot. We are still paying for his profligacy and will be for generations to come. Fiscal irresponsibility results in Labour getting kicked out and Tories getting elected. The Tories repair the economy by imposing austerity but become unpopular in doing so. Labour is re-elected and wrecks it all over again. I fear it is a cycle that will be repeated. > > If someone earns money in this country, as long as > they pay tax on those earnings, they should be > entitled to do what they want with it after that. Your keys words here are ""as long as they pay tax on those earnings"". The reality is that the corporates and some individuals do not pay their tax obligations. Further reading... http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/sterling-devalued-imf-loan.htm https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2016/Removal%20of%20exchange%20control%20by%20the%20Thatcher%20Government_0.pdf Edited to add links

JohnL Wrote: > > How much money comes into the UK from Russia, > China, USA, India, EU etc. > Housing, Company takeovers, Nissan, Steel, even to > support Manchester United in buying players > OK, you have extended the arguement from personal remittances to foreign business capital inflows -euphemistically called Inward Investment. Fine, and there are a many similarities between them both. Let's start with the foreign corporates. They send the money to the UK to buy out the UK share holders (eg Kraft bought Cadburys or Softbank bought ARM) so that the foreign investor now owns 100% of the equity in the UK based company. Having done this, they can now load that UK company with expensive debt from an off-shore bank (in say the Cayman Islands). That way they can minimise or even eliminate any profits arising from the UK business. The cost of servicing the debt gets stashed in the off-shore tax haven. As a ManUtd supporter, I feel particularly agreived as the Glazers heaped massive debts on the club ( which previously had mountains of cash). The Glazers took all that the cash out and part pay off their initial debt. The additional debt imposed on the club now has to be serviced and that ends up off shore as interest payments. The UK Treasury doesn't get a look in as there is no profit registered in the UK beacuse debt interest is trated as a cost. There is a double whammy because the original UK shareholders who previously paid tax on ther dividends to HMRC, no longerr hold these shares. Virtually all countries have "National Interest" legislation which prevents certain take-overs and prevent siphoning off profits to avoid domestic taxation. Sadly the UK does not have this. This ploy yhas been exploited on a massive scale by those foreign companies, and funds ( Canadian Teachers Pension Funds) through the take over of virtually all the UK utility companies. Look at who owns Thames Water and the others. Here are a few of the proud brand names and UK companies that have been the victims of so-called inward investment:- Cadbury, ARM (computer chips), Land Rover, Jaguar, MG, Crosse & Blackwell, Leyland Trucks, Blue Circle Cement, Coventry Climax, Perkins, SABMiller (brewing), Scottish & Newcastle, Tetley, Rolls Royce Cars, Bently, Camelot, Weetabix, Brooke Bond, Branston, British Airports, British Ports, Bond, 75% of all the bus operating companies, 80% of all the water copnies, 90% of all the electricity suppliers, Robertsons (Jam), Gales Honey, Boots, Raleigh, Asda, Thames Water, Colemans, Harrods, House of Fraser, Walkers Crisps, Hartleys Jam, Lotus, Wiseman Dairies, Typhoo, Terrys Chocolate, Bass, beefeater, Chivas Regal Glenlivet, O2, EE, The Times, Hamleys,Umbro, ManUtd, Ribena, Lucozade, McVities and many more. An interesting recent news item was that Nestle is about to off-shore production of Blue Riband biscuits from the UK to Poland. Nestle bought out Rowntree in the UK some years ago. and Rowntree s factory made Blue Riband. The UK is still the biggest market for Blue Riband. Despite this, the product will now be made in Poland and exported to the UK. Result = loss of jobs and a negative impact on the balance of payments. The other massive drain on our economy is what Ebay, Amazon, Google, Apple, and the others do. The sales they make in the UK are not invoiced in the UK but are invoiced in say in Luxemberg or Dublin where they have agreed special tax arrangements. That way they do not register UK sales or profits. What little revenue they do declare in the UK, they minimise further by charging royalties. Another of the worst offenders is Starbucks. A variation on this is the "Double Irish" This relies on the fact that Irish tax law does not include transfer pricing rules as does the United States[1] and those of many other jurisdictions. Specifically, Ireland has territorial taxation, and does not levy taxes on income booked in subsidiaries of Irish companies that are outside the state. It is called double Irish because two Irish companies are used in the arrangement. One of these companies is tax resident in a tax haven, such as the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. Irish tax law currently provides that a company is tax resident where its central management and control is located, not where it is incorporated Reading the Times today, we learn that Apple has an accumulated cash pile off-shore of 610 Billion Dollars! That is more that 4 times the UK's foreign currency reserves. and 5 times the entire market capitalisation of either HSBC or British American Tobacco. So when a politician brags about foreign inward investment to the UK, just stop and consider what really is going on. The reality is an ever decreasing taxation base and foreign transaction deficit in the mediun to long term. So when you say look at """ How much money comes into the UK from Russia, China, USA, India, EU etc. """, take a look at the under-lying detail, the reality is entirely different. Now to go back to personal remittances, the similarity with the corporates is with the initial investment on getting to the UK. Say your average illegal immigrant from say Pakistan or India takes on debt/obligation of around ?8,000 to a trafficker to get them into the UK, they have to pay off that debt from the money they earn in the UK. That's where Western Union comes in. That is the conduit. Whether corporate or personal, both systems work on borrowed funding that has to be remitted off-shore.

rendelharris Wrote: > > So in your mind there's no middle ground between a > complete free-for-all where employers can pay > exactly what they want even if it means people can > only afford to live in slum conditions > and...communism. Interesting. You are extrapolating a tad too much. I was just saying how I had found it during my career. The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate to the UK every year for work suggests that the current system ain't all that bad. Many of these folks make good and good on them for making the best of the opportunity. They work hard and don't complain.

Certainly in industry, commerce, banking etc you are paid by results and responsilibities generally speaking. Pay is also influenced by the results are being achieved by the person involved. This is increasingly valid the higher up the ladder one progresses. Or call it the greasy pole because the higher up the pole you get, the greasier the pole becomes, but the pay and rewards become exponentially greater. Having progressed from the being a 16 year old trade apprentice to becoming CEO of a manufacturing company I can agree that it would be nice to only do a job that one likes doing. But that is not always the case when starting out. Also as one gets to the upper levels of the greasy pole, you have to do things that you don't enjoy doing. The risks, and responsibilities can take a heavy toll and temper the enthusiasm. There's also the matter of insecurity at higher levels as some of those below have ambitions to kick you off the pole. On the plus side, we have a free labour market in the UK. As a consequence, thousands of people come to the UK every year just to take up work. It's up to each person to find themselves a job. What they make of that job is up to them. If one already has a job it's easier to find another job and progress on from there. If starting out in a low paid job in an expensive city then one has to minimise living costs such as accomodation and transport. To many that may mean sharing and that could be 8 people living in a two bedroom flat. What are the alternatives to a free labour market? Communism? That didn't work. If someone comes up with a better system that is sustainable then please post it here so we can all read about it.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure if this is the right section (apologies > if it's an off-topic), but has there been any > announcement by the parties on who will be the > candidates at the general elections? The same as > in 2015? > > Note I have no intention of starting a lengthy > political discussion here - I'm just asking if > there is any news on who the candidates will be. I would suggest you contact the repective party HQ's to get a definitive answer. Any other answer would be complete conjecture.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200083/roadworks_and_highway_improvements/605/obstructions_on_roads_and_pavements

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You described a shop owned by Asians (and whether > or not they're actually from New Dehli is > irrelevant) as making East Dulwich look like New > Dehli. Read my original post again. I made no reference as to who owned the shop or theirr origins. I aslo commented favourably about another hardware shop which is owned by Asians. > > > ETA I'm married to a woman of Asian heritage and > spend a lot of time with her 1st generation > immigrant parents and extended family so I do know > rather a lot about India, thanks. Well, that does explain your knee-jerk reaction. I also notice that you didn't mention living and working in India which suggests your knowledge is relatively limited. Pathetic in the extreme. du Valler