The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[chrisp65]

Just now, bickster said:

Didn't they announce that as policy earlier in the week anyway? Serious question, sure I heard that on the radio somewhere

yes, that was the grand plan, if we have to have border checks then we won't have border checks

this policy is brought to you by the people that failed to organise a practise traffic jam

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Grauniad said:

...Instead, the EU’s response to a no deal will be strategic: opening up advantage, sector by sector, calmly and patiently dismantling the UK’s leading industries over the course of a decade. They will eat the elephant one bite at a time. The problem with abandoning the rules of the international order is that you no longer enjoy their protection.

Yes. This. Exactly this. It will end up (similar to the negotiations now, in some ways) with competing positions from UK and EU industries. The EU will (as it does now) protect and nurture a mixx of industry and workers rights and conditions, keeping out competition that does not conform. They're not perfect at it, but they do a decent job 

The UK would try and turn to a low regulation, low worker protection type situation to try and create cheaper product, but the EU will regulate "our" stuff kind of inadmissable into their market. It will wreck what's left of our industry bit by bit.

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

Some further evidence of the EU's ability to calmly and patiently build up competitive advantage. They must be so good and so patient that after 30 years of almost continuous decline they are still waiting to exercise it!

[meregreen]

4 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

Some further evidence of the EU's ability to calmly and patiently build up competitive advantage. They must be so good and so patient that after 30 years of almost continuous decline they are still waiting to exercise it!

Pretty meaningless graph, as it covers the era of massive growth in China. The EU is still the richest and most lucrative market in the world. With 140 trade agreements globally, and the recent free trade deal with Japan just concluded, we will be leaving the strongest economic bloc in the world to set up a corner shop . God help us.

 

 

 

[snowychap]

10 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

Some further evidence of the EU's ability to calmly and patiently build up competitive advantage.

That's a quite bizarre response to the guy's claim in his article. (I'm assuming it's in response to that rather than some random musing?)

[chrisp65]

24 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

Some further evidence of the EU's ability to calmly and patiently build up competitive advantage. They must be so good and so patient that after 30 years of almost continuous decline they are still waiting to exercise it!

absolute junk statistics, economic bollocks

a smaller a share of a bigger pie can actually be more pie

world GDP in 1980 = 18,818 billion dollars

world GDP in 2014 = 77,000 billion dollars

 

if I had to pick, I'd have the current share of pie over the old one

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

6 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Pretty meaningless graph, as it covers the era of massive growth in China. The EU is still the richest and most lucrative market in the world. With 140 trade agreements globally, and the recent free trade deal with Japan just concluded, we will be leaving the strongest economic bloc in the world to set up a corner shop . God help us.

 

 

 

Richest by which measure? Most lucrative by which measure? And if we add in some US data, do you still want to maintain the graph is 'meaningless' when talking about the EU's ability to either build or maintain competitive advantage?

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

Richest by which measure? Most lucrative by which measure? And if we add in some US data, do you still want to maintain the graph is 'meaningless' when talking about the EU's ability to either build or maintain competitive advantage?

still junk because it still doesn't show how much bigger the total share is

I've only got 20% of my salary left in week 3.

In 1980, I'd have had 40% of my salary left in week 3.

But that tells you nothing of any value, without knowing what I earned then and now. If I earn 5 times more now, then I have a lot more money in week 3 than I used to.

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

still junk because it still doesn't show how much bigger the total share is

I've only got 20% of my salary left in week 3.

In 1980, I'd have had 40% of my salary left in week 3.

But that tells you nothing of any value, without knowing what I earned then and now. If I earn 5 times more now, then I have a lot more money in week 3 than I used to.

The statistics were raised in relation to the EU's ability to gain competitive advantage. I know you've always been a big advocate of evidence based posts. My stats are junk, fine, what evidence can you provide that the EU has a strong track record of gaining competitive advantage against any other trading blocs? 

(I'm fairly sure your pie analogy is the basis of 'trickle down economics' which I think I may have read you opposing in the past, although I'm happy to be corrected)

 

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

do you still want to maintain the graph is 'meaningless' when talking about the EU's ability to either build or maintain competitive advantage?

It's not meaningless, quite. But it doesn't show "competitive advantage" does it? it just shows GDP - the total value in dollars of all the economic activity of the nations. So it shows the growth of China as an economic power, clearly. It also shows that the cumulative GDPs of the EU nations, as a percentage of a larger pie is less (despite the increase in the number of the EU member countries). But it doesn't show the differences in economies. It doesn't show the UK's individual graph - has the UK improved our share, lost share, increased as a consequence of membership, or decreased as a consequence of membership, or neutral effect. I'd be interested to see, because we've gone from "the sick man of Europe" before we joined to an apparently much better situation - including attracting a huge amount of inward investment due to the likes of Nissan, Honda, etc. So if that situation reverses as a consequence of leaving, then regardless of what other EU nations are doing, it makes us worse off.

As well as all that, clearly China, India etc. have and will continue to have advantages in terms of wages they pay, low cost manufacturing etc. whether we leave or not. IF we leave and try to go down the same route as China, we'll lose, because we'll have to accept reduced wages and reduced safety. SHouldn't we as part of a collective, stay together as a larger block to counter some of the dominance of China/USA etc, rather than be a little (relatively) ship bobbing about on our own in the storm?

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

The statistics were raised in relation to the EU's ability to gain competitive advantage. I know you've always been a big advocate of evidence based posts. My stats are junk, fine, what evidence can you provide that the EU has a strong track record of gaining competitive advantage against any other trading blocs? 

(I'm fairly sure your pie analogy is the basis of 'trickle down economics' which I think I may have read you opposing in the past, although I'm happy to be corrected)

 

No, it's got nothing to do with trickle down.

In very very rounded numbers:

in 1980, the EU had 30% / 35% of all the business / trade. The total pot was £20, so they had £6.50

in 2014 the EU had 15% of all the business / trade around the world. The total pot was £80, so they had £12.00

so, in a world with more nations competing, the EU trade more now than they used to - it's a good news story for the EU, they have proven to be relatively good at business

 

To put it another way, if we had 100% of all the trade with Romania when they were a basket case third world state, but now we only have 25% of the trade with Romania, then we're doing better now than we were then. The 75% of business we are not getting with Romania? That's putting money in the pockets of Koreans and Chinese. They use some of that money to buy Land Rovers and Mulberry scarves. So we do more trade with them as well. 

That's very simplistic, there are thousands of other factors, some good, some bad.

Edited February 7, 2019 by chrisp65
spilling herrors

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's not meaningless, quite. But it doesn't show "competitive advantage" does it? it just shows GDP - the total value in dollars of all the economic activity of the nations. So it shows the growth of China as an economic power, clearly. It also shows that the cumulative GDPs of the EU nations, as a percentage of a larger pie is less (despite the increase in the number of the EU member countries). But it doesn't show the differences in economies. It doesn't show the UK's individual graph - has the UK improved our share, lost share, increased as a consequence of membership, or decreased as a consequence of membership, or neutral effect. I'd be interested to see, because we've gone from "the sick man of Europe" before we joined to an apparently much better situation - including attracting a huge amount of inward investment due to the likes of Nissan, Honda, etc. So if that situation reverses as a consequence of leaving, then regardless of what other EU nations are doing, it makes us worse off.

As well as all that, clearly China, India etc. have and will continue to have advantages in terms of wages they pay, low cost manufacturing etc. whether we leave or not. IF we leave and try to go down the same route as China, we'll lose, because we'll have to accept reduced wages and reduced safety. SHouldn't we as part of a collective, stay together as a larger block to counter some of the dominance of China/USA etc, rather than be a little (relatively) ship bobbing about on our own in the storm?

C'mon where's your Dunkirk Spirit, we're British, we will overcome these obstacles, You aren't giving it a chance always talking this great country down with your common sense. Common sense gets you nowhere

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's not meaningless, quite.

without referencing what the original and final per centages relate to, it is meaningless

Would you like 30% of what's in box A or 15% of what's in box B?

Well, I'd suggest you need to know what's in the boxes before you decide.

 

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well, I'd suggest you need to know what's in the boxes before you decide.

Oh, come on.  We managed to hold a referendum without knowing what was in the boxes.  Have you no spirit of adventure?

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

No, it's got nothing to do with trickle down.

In very very rounded numbers:

in 1980, the EU had 30% / 35% of all the business / trade. The total pot was £20, so they had £6.50

in 2014 the EU had 15% of all the business / trade around the world. The total pot was £80, so they had £12.00

so, in a world with more nations competing, the EU trade more now than they used to - it's a good news story for the EU, they have proven to be relativelt good at business

 

To put it another way, if we had 100% of all the trade with Romania when they were a basket case third world state, but now we only have 25% of the trade with Romania, then we're doing better now than we were then. The 75% of business we are not getting with Romania? That's putting money in the pockets of Koreans and Chinese. They use some of that money to buy Land Rovers and Mulberry scarves. So we do more trade with then as well. 

In 1980 we go in to business. You own a 30% stake. We make £20 profit so your share is £6.50

By 2014 the business has expanded. But now you only own 15% of the business. We make £80, your share is £12.

Good news story, you get more than you used to and have demonstrated yourself to be a good businessman!

 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

In 1980 we go in to business. You own a 30% stake. We make £20 profit so your share is £6.50

By 2014 the business has expanded. But now you only own 15% of the business. We make £80, your share is £12.

Good news story, you get more than you used to and have demonstrated yourself to be a good businessman!

 

Presumably, your 15% loss in the company resulted in a windfall sale of your 15% and brought new money into the business from which you indirectly benefited and you invested your windfall from the 15% sold into another venture.

Your analogy is therefore crap as it does show the full picture

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

Just now, bickster said:

Your analogy is therefore crap as it does show the full picture

The remain camp encapsulated right there...I’ll try to make my analogies more one sided in future! 

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

In 1980 we go in to business. You own a 30% stake. We make £20 profit so your share is £6.50

By 2014 the business has expanded. But now you only own 15% of the business. We make £80, your share is £12.

Good news story, you get more than you used to and have demonstrated yourself to be a good businessman!

 

Well, yeah. That's right.

Except I'm thinking you were being sarcastic?

Would you prefer to stick with six fifty?

 

[a m ole]

The other option is to leave the business and own 100% of nothing.

[peterms]