Lordship 516

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think DaveR is pointing to something more > sociological Lordship. In this reading 'workers' > qua proletariat: zero contract, temporary, > minimum-waged, unemployed, manual, no human > capital (and little or no social or cultural > capital), unpaid (housewives/househusbands, those > staying at home to look after the elderly or > infirm). That is why DaveR is not a 'worker' even > though he works. > > in Bourdieu's language, the original Marx (and > Lukacs) hope was that 'workers' are the only ones > who do not misrecognise the socio-economic for > what it is: a system of symbolic violence in which > privilege is transmuted to sociodicy (the illusion > that one's privilege is warranted, achieved by > solipsistic acts of self-justification e.g. those > who inherit gifts come to think of themselves as > gifted in the education system). Unfortunately, as > Bourdieu also saw, the 'workers' as so defined are > subject to a reverse sociodicy of disillusion and > stoic acceptance of their lot - partly because > capitalism has dissolved the proletariat into 1. > the precariat (the 'workers') 2. the aspirational > consumer or highly paid unionist (e.g. tube > worker). So they never rise up to fulfill Marx's > promise, except in ways that are self-defeating > (as in the ressentiment of Brexit). Possibly, but he ill defines what he is driving at. I would agree that the economic/political definition of a 'worker' need to be brought into the 21st century. The gainfully employed for financial reward; The gainfully underemployed for financial gain; The available to be employed even if discouraged; The stay-at-home carer who substitutes avoided cost for social care The volunteer who add value to society at large [ie - soup kitchen & food bank organizers] Charity 'workers', Third Sector Organizations & philantrophy These ought all be added to the category of 'worker' & valued in the economic model in a meaningful manner; it would show exactly how much economic activity is undertaken in any economy. Some good work has been done but not enough has been included to highlight the important contribution all of these 'workers' make to our economy. Not every productive activity that adds to the socio-economic mix is included in GDP statistics. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 said : ?GDP measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.? For that reason, in their report for the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (CMEPSP), Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi recommended a shift away from measures of economic production towards measures of economic well-being. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) now publishes measures of National Well-being in their annual ?Life in the UK? report. Internationally, the UN has recently published its second World Happiness Report (United Nations (2014)). The UK ranks 22nd out of 156 countries. The OECD publishes a range of well-being indicators as part of its Better Life Index. An un-weighted average of its indicators ranks the UK 12th out of the 36 countries. The UK does well on measures of income, wealth, security and environment, less well on work-life balance, education, skills, and housing. There is a considerable gap between the richest and poorest ? in the UK the top 20% of the population earn nearly six times as much as the bottom 20%.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "NB - can someone explain to me the difference > > between a 'worker' and someone who has a job? > > A 'worker' is a supplier of labour services & an > 'employer is the 'demander' > > 'Labour' is the measure of the work done & 'human > capital' is the skill that a worker possesses. > > Another measure is that a worker receives a reward > for 'earned income' as opposed to 'unearned > income' . The unemployed who make themselves > available for work are regarded as workers except > for those who are classified as unemployable. > There is another category is the discouraged > worker who has essentially given up on seeking > work due to finding it nigh impossible to find > work. > > Self employed are 'workers' & some economies tend > to treat their transition to 'employer' > differently. > > It gets complicated according to hours worked & > hours available for work etc - economists treat > the subject differently to tax people." > > > > > > Any chance of getting an answer from someone who > actually read the question? > > To be clear - I have a job, but in the world > according to Corbyn I'm clearly not a 'worker' (to > whom only good things must happen and who must be > protected at all costs - by unions). So where/how > do you draw the line? Is it a money thing, is it > public sector vs private sector, is it a North vs > South thing (though you don't get much more South > than JC)? > > NB - by the definition according to Mr "I didn't > read the question" above I am very clearly a > worker, but that just demonstrates that (as > expected) he or she is adding nothing useful here. I read your question - you failed to understand the answer. To make it more simple for your confused mind - A worker is someone who receives earned income to do a job. You can also do a job but not receive earned income such as a landlord might do or a speculator who plays with inherited or previously earned income to make an unearned profit. The Royal Family have jobs but are not 'workers' in the economic sense but they do a lot of good work. I don't know what your job is but I doubt that Corbyn or anyone else has singled you out as not being a worker.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship 516 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > The the proportion of working-age adults who do > > not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent > to > > 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people > > [2007/08 to 2015/16]. > > > > This is an indictment of the low pay policy > > promoted by the tory parties > > and nothing at all to do with the almost doubling > of the personal allowance since 2010? This was not an indictment - this was even the arch right winger Osborne recognizing that the lower paid needed relief at the lower end of the income scale.... Why not take care to review the huge divergence in income that has developed since 1979 when the Thatcher monetarist machine got hold of the UK..? We have indeed been swamped & riddled by people of a different culture, people who are intent on enslaving the population to their monetarist profit machines, indentured for life to feed their discountable receivables that are wrapped into derivitives that have destabilized world economies many times over since Thatcher, Reagan & their horrible fascist friends took control of our lives. This is just an objective view of where we have gotten to since that awful group managed to get control of the financial institutions and their supportive media vultures. The tories are aptly named - the actual maening of the word tory derives from the Gaelic word 't?raidhe' [t?ir in Gaelic is to hunt, chase or pursue]. Tory Island, the only part of the so-called British Isles where the Customs & Excise could never collect duty & where even the British Army gave up - the word 't?raidhe' means brigand, bandit, robber - one of a class noted for their outrages and savage cruelty, someone who causes terror, a bully. They have been robbing the population in one way or another for generations and they will continue to scalp us for future generations to come unless the cycle is broken. Just a note for the Mayniacs - It was Thatcher who signed the Single European Act, creating the single market - her adoring fans [May, Johnson et al] have conveniently forgotten that & we mustn't also forget that ?every Prime Minister needs a willie?.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > as it happens i'm also trying to discourage > alkanet - it overpowers everything else in the > garden > > i see that it is said to thrive in soil with high > (alkaline) pH, so i thought that lowering the soil > pH might make it harder for alkanet to do well and > also help my chlorotic hydrangea > > any suggestions for reducing the alkalinity of > soil? Add peat moss or aluminium sulphate; composted manure will also do the job.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jaywalker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And what do all the Conservative voters who > read > > this forum hope for Barry? > > > > To be clear, if the Tories win, his country > > cousins will be torn apart by packs of dogs. > > Get a life and spare us your boring > politicalisation of every topic you respond to. > It's so repetitive, infantile and boring. > > GG Fox hunting is pretty repetitive, infantile, & boring also - except, of course for blood-thirsty hooray henrys who have bugger all else to do.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of income tax - > that's 320,000 people (based on 32 million in > employment); many of them will have highly > portable skills alot of them won't be UK citizen - > if the spread of international workers in say > banking in London is anything to go by - and very > many of them work for big, international financial > services with plenty of offices overseas (that > will be exacerbated by Brexit) and easily > transferable within their companies; many won't > share Left wing views on sharing half of their > income for the greater good either; - not hard to > say a 100,000 of these moving off the UK payroll > with devastating results for tax take. This > combined with the anti-business crap that Labour > spouts will see an exodus of high vale employees > and employers. Stone age economics but at least > we'll be more equal in our squalor. Anyone but > Labour for me now is the clear cut decision which > here in SE22 probably means voting Conservative > for the first time in my life - i can feel my dad > spinning in his grave. The the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people [2007/08 to 2015/16]. This is an indictment of the low pay policy promoted by the tory parties [including Tory Bliar's regime] whereby a huge phlanx of the population don't even get enough to pay their way - this even applies to nurses, police & firemen who provide essential services. If these people earned sufficient basic pay then they would begin to pay tax. If their low pay is so essential to the various industries that they work for then society needs to top up their income to adjust the deficit - as in tax benefits but a bit better than is paid now. Then we would have a fairer society. Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax. Many of this 1% are paying tax on unearned income & cannot be regarded as 'workers' - they collect rent, interest, dividends etc. often on inheritated wealth. They benefit from a hidden income - the capital growth of their holdings that they never pay tax on until they dispose of the asset & they have many opportunities to manipulate the derived income in a 'tax efficient' manner - that means 'tax avoidance' promoted by gunslinger banksters, solicitors & accountants. These asset accretions need to be taxed as much as our cash incomes are. This is mainly due to the growing inequality over time from 1978/79 that signifies that the larger tax burden on the richest reflects their rising incomes. The richer people and high paid must regard their taxation to be an opportunity cost. If they dislike it they can always go elsewhere - their jobs will be taken up by plenty of available people who will probably do a better job & for less. The UK is a sufficiently large market that will attract people to service it. The issue of the treatement of invisible earnings from such activities as insurance, banking, shipping services supplied to non-residents is an area that needs special treatment but so also does tax avoidance & tax evasion need sorting out. We need the NHS functioning so we can have our health looked after when we need it. We need the police functioning so we can be safe & so we can walk the streets without fear. We need good schools with sufficient staff to educate our children to a reasonable standard. Etc. etc.... I am in the higher tax bracket [thankfully but not the 1%]. I could avoid paying a lot of tax [about half] by keeping funds abroad in China, Ireland, Brazil & elsewhere that I get paid from but I am happy to pay my due tax particularly if the services are to a good standard - by returning my funds to the UK also gives me security for my earnings. I sleep at night & know that in the future a big bill won't drop on my mat some morning demanding previously non-reported earnings. I am not being sanctimonious, just try to act fairly. The NHS saved my life twice, I owe the state respect for that & my kids education & much more. No issue - I expect most people ought to act likewise & be happy to do so.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NB - can someone explain to me the difference > between a 'worker' and someone who has a job? A 'worker' is a supplier of labour services & an 'employer is the 'demander' 'Labour' is the measure of the work done & 'human capital' is the skill that a worker possesses. Another measure is that a worker receives a reward for 'earned income' [wages, salaries, tips, other taxable employee pay and self-employment income] as opposed to 'unearned income' [property income, inheritance, rent, interest & profit]. The unemployed who make themselves available for work are regarded as workers except for those who are classified as unemployable. There is another category is the discouraged worker who has essentially given up on seeking work due to finding it nigh impossible to find work. Self employed are 'workers' & some economies tend to treat their transition to 'employer' differently. It gets complicated according to hours worked & hours available for work etc - economists treat the subject differently to tax people.

jaywalker Wrote: > Second, Hayek was an intelligent man. He knew that > Friedman-esq justifications of the free-market > economy were nonsense. This is very true. There is a great difference between what Hayek held & what Friedman & his bankster friends have spread around the world. Friedman used Hayek's ideas to his own purpose & he & his followers ignored Hayek's rejection of unqualified laissez-faire, and the fact that he reserved a useful, limited economic role for government in their mad dash for an extreme version of free markets and effective regulation of the shadow banking system . Friedman even promoted the abolition of the FDA. They also chose to ignore Hayek's willingness to consider a national health care program, and even a state-provided basic income for the poor. However his exhorting Thatcher to cut the deficit in one year rather than five years showed his lack of understanding or empathy with those that would be affected - even Thatcher had to point out that the social impact of even faster adjustment would not be suitable in a democracy such as the UK. Paul Samuelson [whom I had the pleasure to study under in MIT] was always Friedman's opponent. He advocated a more considered approach to economic theory & paractice - taking the best of all the ideas, whether they came from Keynes, Hayek or wherever & applying them appropriately. He along with Solow & others developed the concept of neoclassical synthesis which is basically the predominant thought behind modern economics notwithstanding the influences of the neoliberal lobby. Larry Summers [his nephew] was Obama's chief economic adviser & Samuelson wholeheartedly approved his advice to Obama to use massive amounts of government spending to escape from the recession which was largely successful. This was viciously opposed by the neoliberal lobby who continue to rail against it. Samuelson stated "free markets do not stabilize themselves." Rational regulation serves society better than no regulation. In time [probably a short time] Friedman & his ideas will fade as governments around the world come to their senses and their influence will be regarded as a passing nightmare - the market will prevail & their value will recede to zero. Unfortunately the adjustment away from their harsh monetarism will take too long for many.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship 516 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I used the word abject poverty on purpose - > going > > to bed hungry may be a 'relative' measure to > you > > but it is reality to the hungry person. > > But 'abject' is a meaningless, undefined phrase, > especially as you then used the stats for relative > poverty. And 'relative' does not necessarily > indicate someone is "going to bed hungry". That > would be 'absolute poverty'. Abject: utterly hopeless, miserable, humiliating, or wretched I was writing as a human being - not as an economist. You are too comfortable in your little corner, ready to argue the toss about every little nuance. I used a published statistic to illustrate the level of poverty being experienced by children in the UK - 4 million is that statistic - the children are real sufferers & not a statistic. They represent our failure as a society. > But I suspect you well know that using 'absolute' > would disprove your initial argument that "it is > not true to say that they have delivered a decline > in hunger", since absolute poverty in the UK has > roughly halved over the past 20 years. You are the one who has used the term absolute - absolute poverty is very subjective term and is little used [see Townsend]. I am careful about using semantics and the hungry children cannot find any comfort in any of our words - they need strong & stable food & shelter not boll@#ology from the Mayniacs about how they are going to tackle their poverty; they need the food & shelter tonight & every night not some vague promise in the dim & distant future.

I used the word abject poverty on purpose - going to bed hungry may be a 'relative' measure to you but it is reality to the hungry person. 'Relative poverty' is a term that has relevance to statisticians; hunger is very relevant to the 4 million poverty stricken children in the UK today & tomorrow and....... We are obliged to do more than just wring our hands & keen at their plight. And yes, if things improved & there is no reasonable trickle down of the gains then these children would still be hungry. This is why society needs to step in and assist these people & their families to escape their poverty. The neo-liberal solution is to let them die and then there is no longer a problem - it's the market, stupid!. Nietszhe - "?There is nothing more terrible, than a class of barbaric slaves who have learned to regard their existence as an injustice, and now prepare to avenge, not only themselves, but all generations.? [The Birth of Tragedy]. His contemporary, Carl Menger who is regarded as the father of the Austrian school [he wrote Principles of Economics] that gave us Friedrich von Wieser & Eugen von B?hm-Bawerk who in turn educated Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Joseph Schumpeter [who advocated ?creative destruction.?]. B?hm-Bawerk and Wieser promoted Menger?s work and their students Mises and Hayek extended the Austrian school neo-liberalism to the whole world. Unfettered by ethic or decency it has given us a ruinous system whereby the vast majority of humanity has been made slave to the oligarchy of financial overlords. The neo-liberals separate economics from ethics and philosophy - capital & land have more value & power than labour and labour must be subservient to that capital god - the market. We are not allowed to have a free market for labour - htis would debase their insistence that it is money & money alone that controls our existance.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I merely sought to explain how government > spending actually works in reality." > > Is that right? Or do you mean 'in theory'? > > "The effect of this multiplier can be as much as > 2.5 times to 5 times the injected amount after an > initial lag period of between 6 months & one year > for current spend or 1 year to three years for > capital spend." > > I'd like to see some evidence for that - I am > aware of recent arguments that in developed > economies the evidence for multipliers greater > than 1 is pretty thin. You can have plenty of evidence on this if you care to study the subject in some detail & carefully - go to the British Library or the LSE library. Recent arguments put forward to refute the effects of fiscal multipliers are mainly put forward by neo-liberals in support of their jungle economics. Where the spend is on one element of the economy the multiplier is smaller; where it is applied to infrastructure projects with most if not all of the labour & materials being sourced locally [uK] then the effects of the multiplier are more pronounced [2.5 to 3 times] > > The real point about the Corbyn manifesto is not, > in any event, about what is the appropriate fiscal > multiplier. Trying to implement even a fraction > of that manifesto will hit business confidence > both in the UK and externally so hard that the > negative effects will massively outweigh any > benefits. People have talked about 'back to the > 70s' but a fair summary of the overall policy > platform is 'we think the UK should be more like > Cuba'. And we all know how well things are going > there. You are making that analysis just to insert a smart alec comment - it is a far cry from how the Cuban economy works. Your comment has no basis in fact - only a teenage psuedo-journalistic slur.. > At least it's almost honest (I say almost because > the expansion of the State promised is undoubtedly > just the beginning in Corbyn's world). More about contracting the excesses of an uncontrolled/out-of-control market operators & bring control back under local control so that the budgets won't be loaded with artificial debt.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope - society is what it is with some of it's > flaws which will right themselves over time to be > replaced by other imperfections - it's not rigged > by vested interests. > > Globally - the bogey 'neo liberalism' and free > markets are delivering unprecedented increase in > wealth, accelerating decline in hunger (more > people now dying of obesity than starvation), > massive improvements in health (life expectancy > and infant mortality improving at phenomenal > rates) - the anti-capitalist left and spoilt > westerners struggle a bit with this reality so we > get the tedious narratives of exploitation, > unfairness etc. Empirically by any positive > measure capitalism outclasses socialism by such a > vast gap it's laughable that otherwise > intelligent people seem to take pride in still > declaring "i'm a socialist " as some badge of > honour, seriously has me scratching my head. The > main barriers to these global improvements are > political and theocratic idealism. It is very true to say that the neo-liberal & free-markets [laissez faire] have delivered unprecedented wealth - for the very few that can harness gun-slinger lawyers, Bankers & accountants to leverage their power to shelter their gains from being shared by all of society. It is not true to say that they have delivered a decline in hunger - there are over 4 million children still in abject poverty in this country, hidden from view and without a real advocate to challenge their condition. You can then cast your vision [if it can reach that far] towards Africa, Asia & South America where there are countless hundreds of millions barely keeping themselves alive on scraps & handouts. You have huge multi-nationals controlling the food production of nations - chocolate in Ghana is essentially controlled by Nestl? & others, corn production & distribution is 80% controlled by Cargill Tradex etc. etc. This is what the neo-liberals promote - wealth for their people and F@#* the rest. It is not communist or Marxist to promote fairness or even to promote controlling the essential services of a country. Mixed economies can and do prosper - have a look at how Scandinavian countries operate; taxes are high but satisfaction is also high with health, education & transportation provided with a high level of efficiency. Advocating the Corbyn programme is not necessarily going back to the bad ole 70s - it is about remediating the current problems & moving forward in a manner that is more fair to the vast majority of our population. There were failures in the 70s and lessons can be learned from these. There are certainly failures in health, education, transportation, utilities now on a much grander scale & this needs to be brought under control & managed for the benefit of the population & not run for the benefit of shareholders many of whom live abroad. Of course the 'capitalists' [vultures] will scream & yell that they will go away & take their investment with them - good riddance. The UK have enough qualified & dedicated people of our own to run our own needs without having these awful so-called investors sucking the lifeblood out of the country. The gospel according to Hayek, Friedman & their grasping acolytes needs putting aside and a new era of decency introduced back into our society; where the human being will matter more than raw money, where the markets will be subservient to society & not society subservient to the market. Where people can live & prosper, one & all and no one is left in a limbo of poverty, where the strong will be willing to support the weak and the young will support the old. The markets will do none of these, neither will the Mayniacs who appear to be committed to screwing all but their own claque of followers. We need to have elements of capitalism but also moderated with social justice for all.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship 516 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Much of the Labour manifesto can either be > neutral > > or positive in their cost and will reach this > > condition after just a few months or 1 year. > > The 'multiplier effect' of some public spending, I > understand. But extrapolating this to effectively > say by spending ?90bn we will actually make a net > gain???....ummmmmm...I'd like to see both your > hands above the table please.... The ?90 billion is not all spent on day one - there is a cash-flow out & a lagging period for cash-flow in - the time difference will vary depending on the nature of the activity being invested in. For employment [extra medical staff, police, lecturers or avoidance of redundancy] the multiplier kicks in pretty quickly. For capital spend the spend is slower & consequently the multiplier takes longer to kick in. The Social impacts are felt almost immediately & will continue to improve over the years. ?90 billion is not such a big figure in an economy such as the UK - its significant but not so huge to be unmanageable. It is actually less than ?1,500 per person in the UK as a whole.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh Good some expert and neutral analysis from you > again.....we are in awe It appears that you read most content with acquired prejudice. I merely sought to explain how government spending actually works in reality. The headline amount is not ever the final result on paper or in the bank. You know this but just want to knock people for the sake of knocking. Most people are aware of your nonsense. I'm waiting for their costings & will make up my mind but from what I have seen I think that their policies can become neutral on taxation pretty quickly - one to two years & become positive after about 3 to 4 years.

TheCat Wrote: > Yep...I lost a little faith in his analysis when > in the comments for the original article, he > accused an Actuary (who was making a reasonable > point) of 'having no idea about statistics'...I'm > guessing he doesn't know what an actuary is... Murphy has a particular agenda & makes many good arguments to support that. However, what he has failed to demonstrate is that an actuary uses statistics in a very different manner to an economist. An actuary is usually using a combination of various statistics including lifestyle analysis in order to best project various likelyhoods such as time of death or propensity to suffer an accident and usually carries out this exercise for discrete age and/or activity groups. [a non-smoker will pay less for health based insurances but a smoker will be offered higher annuity payments as they are expected to have a shorter lifespan] An macro economist uses mainly economic statistics to try to define what is happening in the economy or what is likely to happen in an economy if certain criteria change as a result of market conditions or policy changes. For discrete population groups [age, gender, wealth, employment sector] an economist will uses statistics that impact these groups and the projections will usually be shorter term in their evaluations than actuaries. Murphy's biggest sin is to argue from the particular now to the general over many years and this is not real analysis but suits his own agenda, mainly I think to boast his own ego. Read his website "Read more about me". He has an accountants approach to econometrics - in essance he is able to add. He is a nice guy & his heart is in the right place but much of his analysis is very simplistic & lacks rigour. Much of his work is directed at tax fairness & how to tackle evasion/avoidance. Numbers & statistics are funny animals and very hard to tame, made more especially hard if you play around too much with interpreting them in a manner that is not related to actuality. Evaluating the effects public policy spend is a very specialized science because of the effects that actual spend has on the multiplier of its application. An argument has to be made for every ? spent on the NHS [for example] in the UK [not for imported goods] there is a credit spin-off from the spend [wages for instance] whereby the recipient pays tax & NI, spends the balance of their salaries buying goods & services in the local economy in order to live & in turn the people they pay will also spend in the local economy & so on. So a gross spend of ?5Billion headline spend could result in a net burden on the exchequer of very much less than the actual ?5billion headline figure & even result in a positive contribution to the exchequer, if applied in a managed manner. The same applies to the spend on tuition fees whereby the current ?9,000.00 par head is mainly spent on providing extra teaching staff [most other costs are fixed assets paid for already] & they in turn will spend in the local economy & in turn the people they pay will also spend in the local economy. The effect of this multiplier can be as much as 2.5 times to 5 times the injected amount after an initial lag period of between 6 months & one year for current spend or 1 year to three years for capital spend. There is a social gain from this also with better health & education having been achieved. Thatcher & her acolytes have carried out an ideological war against this good type of government subsidy but the result has been a decay in services and a loss of badly needed jobs. Much of the Labour manifesto can either be neutral or positive in their cost and will reach this condition after just a few months or 1 year. The amount of extra taxation burden required can be as little as 10% but is more likely to be in the order of 30% for the 1st year and reducing thereafter due to the exponential effect of the multiplier effect generating an enhanced cashflow to the exchequer. There is a further positive in that this spend can also remove unemployed/underemployed people off the unemployment register & reduce welfare spending. The Tories know this but they are playing to a simplistic audience - the Labour party have to educate the population on this point.

Fum

Roster

up

ball

May & Hammond avoiding the necessary Statement of Financial Position - screeching no,no,no at the EU figure but not providing any alternative to clarify the UK's exposure to shared EU pensions, projects & support schemes that the UK was a willing party to. There will be a need to settle this with some being paid as a lump sum & some more being paid in installments as they become due & payable. This is obviously a conscious policy on their part as they must have an idea of the exposure & don't want to let the electorate know because it would affect the votes they might get. L'addition always has to be paid.

Saudi Arabia market is already pretty saturated & their income has been very much reduced due to oil prices - imports down by 30% in Q4/2016 recovering v. slightly in Q1/2017. UK $7.2B, Germany $11B, China $23B, The Philippines provides a minor market opening as the US is s bit persona non grata but they are short of ready cash - was up during 2016 but has dropped back to 2015 levels [down about 18%]; US $6B, UK $550m, China $15B, Japan $8B. Uncertain political situation. UK exports to EU - 44% of all UK exports - $240B; probably overstates the proportion of UK exports that go to the EU, because a lot of goods pass through ports like Rotterdam before being shipped to a final destination outside the EU - estimated at about 2%. EU exports to UK - 53% of all UK imports - $322B; 18.9% of all EU exports of $1710 [not incl. UK exports]. a very minor amount overstated due to goods passing through to Ireland. Any gains in export have to be won little by little & there needs to be a joined up strategy - UK government doesn't appear to have one. Good companies will be working on it but many will need help that appears not to be well organized. The effects of a hard Brexit will hit the UK much harder than the EU - without doubt. Many of the UK imports can be cross-distributed to other EU countries substituting for UK exports. The UK won't have this mechanism available. [wrong data deleted]

I'm sure

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So May is now accusing 'Brussels' of interfering > in the election. Incendiary, counterproductive and > far from being in the national interest. But then > the Tories seem happy to destroy relations with > Europe in exchange of narrow party interests. I find the government line quite mad & mayopic. For all their chat about planning & doing deals and how europe will hurt more than the UK, Europe has been working quietly to replace UK import volumes with export to alternative markets - they very obviously have a co-ordinated plan. Ireland has just signed a deal with China for premium pork, beef, crab & racehorse exports, signed a deal for exporting premium grass-fed beef to the USA etc; Germany has cleared the way for more car exports to China [in exchange for building another factory there] - a moderate increase to China will absorb all of their exports currently made to the UK; Spain has been all over South America recently doing deals & France is very active in Africa. Eurpoe is already preparing substitute markets for a hard Brexit while the Mayniacs are arguing the toss about the square root of fcuk all. I'm pretty sure that switched on companies in the UK are doing likewise but the government appears to be blinded by the glaring headlights of their own making. For every marketing/sales person the UK can put on the ground, the EU can send 9 or 10 - critical mass is what matters & they will make more headway, faster.

rhubarb

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really like this idea. I'm a big fan of the idea > of a Universal Wage for all adults (over 16s > probably as I think prolonged compulsory schooling > is a great evil). I hadn't thought about the > flexibility this would give monetary policy (the > only policy that won't get crowded out in a free > exchange rate with perfect capital mobility world, > apart from distribution on the fiscal side - as > you say, infrastructure). And it would be fair in > its impact. I have been appalled by the crass way > quantitative easing has benefited so distorted a > part of the economy. The surest manner to do this is to distribute it to all who: a] Have a NI Number - only available to those over 16 entitled to work in the UK; b] Tax affairs up to date; c] Are registered to vote in local elections - only available to UK permanent residents over 16 [extend eligibility] d] Actually vote - if you don't vote, you lose your Universal Wage. [turnouts would be very high] If you fail any criterion, then no UW.