Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error

Politics and Economics-2017 Election
King Lodos
Posted: 07 June 2017 00:22:01(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 11,046

Thanks: 6166 times
Was thanked: 30411 time(s) in 8333 post(s)
Hawking's someone I'd go to if I had questions about Black Hole Evaporation – not necessarily politics and economics..

Corbyn's hard-left ideology is really the economic Flat Earth Theory .. Even in Ayn Rand's day you could point out that these principles had been tried everywhere, with not only a lack of success, but more often utter economic and societal disaster.

Only three years ago, Corbyn was praising Venezula's economic reforms – today Venezuelans are taking to the streets to hunt vermin and stray cats .. This is an ideology people cling onto no matter how large the mountain of evidence against it .. If there's one thing trading teaches you, it's that things rarely work the way you think they should – ignore data at your own peril.
6 users thanked King Lodos for this post.
john_r on 07/06/2017(UTC), Freddy4Skin on 07/06/2017(UTC), jvl on 07/06/2017(UTC), Alan Anderson on 07/06/2017(UTC), Alan Selwood on 07/06/2017(UTC), xcity on 08/06/2017(UTC)
john_r
Posted: 07 June 2017 00:22:22(UTC)

Joined: 18/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 278

Thanks: 475 times
Was thanked: 310 time(s) in 157 post(s)
Prof Eman;47687 wrote:
.............
As regards turkeys for Christmas, wait for the outcome.........................


Just one day to go Prof Eman and I just couldn't stop thinking about your students. They need something solid to debate instead of the hairy fairy "Its not fair " motions.
"Life after the election" seems a solid mainstream topic so I've delved into the archives to pull out some meaty facts. Here is the first 10 for your young, intelligent and idealistic students to debate. Feedback your results asap. T.May may be able to deliver on all of these.

1. Centralised power is the wrong way to go
People thrive most in societies in which power is distributed as thinly and widely as possible. In such environments they are happier, healthier, wealthier, freer, and they achieve more. The EU, by design, centralises power in Brussels. We are moving into an age of decentralisation and localisation. The EU is the wrong model for the times. Do you agree the EU are using the wrong model Prof Eman?

2. Fringe nations perform better
Since the inception of the EU in 1993, the economies of Norway, Switzerland and Iceland (even with its financial crisis) – the fringe nations – have on a per capita basis dramatically outperformed their neighbouring EU economies. We would be a fringe nation and that would suit us. I bet your students agree with this Prof Eman?

3. Regulation should be local
Around 65% of regulation is now set in Brussels. It is of a one-size-fits-all variety, and so often inappropriate to local circumstances. Rather than facilitate progress, regulation hinders it. Yet, once in place, regulation is hard to change. Rather than get cut, it is added to. We already have too much in our lives. What we need would be much better set locally, according to local needs and circumstances. Surely this is something we can all agree on Prof Eman?

4. The economic disaster that is southern Europe. In 2016 we had around 39% youth unemployment in Italy, 45% in Spain and 49% in Greece. These countries are unable to do the things they need to do to kickstart their economies because decisions are being taken on their behalf; not locally, but in Brussels. There is not a case for supporting an organisation that has inflicted such misery on its people. Reform of a bureaucratic organisation like that from within is an impossible undertaking Prof Eman.

5. Immigration policy is becoming ever more important.
There are more and more people in the world and – whether it’s those displaced by wars, by lack of water, by poverty, hunger or lack of opportunity – more and more of them are on the move. We are in a migration of people of historic proportions. The UK, cannot continue support its current level of immigration levels (over 300,000 a year and growing) . We just don't have the infrastructure Prof Eman.

6. Trade deals are a red herring.
As a percentage share, British trade with the EU, despite the single market, has fallen by almost 20% since 1999. British trade with the US, on the other hand, has grown. We have no official trade deal with the US. see UK: Exports of goods and Services. Source: Oxford Economics/ Haver Analytics. There is no point having a common market if the economies of the countries you’re in that market with are dying.
Were clearly better off organising our own trade arrangements Prof Eman.

7. Further integration with the EU = economic decline
When Britain joined the Common Market in 1973, the EU (as it is now) produced 38% of the world’s goods and services – 38% of global GDP. In 1993, when the EU formally began, it produced just under 25%. Today the EU produces just 17%. The obvious explanation for this is the rise of the Asian economies, which have taken on a bigger share of global GDP. But the US share has only fallen by 27% compared with a drop of 55% for the EU. We're better without more decline Prof Eman?

8. Democratic accountability matters
The EU is not a democratically accountable body. We didn't vote for the administrators and we can't vote them out - we can’t do anything. And if you want some idea as to the esteem in which they hold democratic process, how about this from the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Junker: “prime ministers must stop listening so much to their voters and instead act as ‘full time Europeans’.” Or how about another one of his remarks: “when it gets serious, you have to lie”. Just what you want in a president. Do you remember voting for him? I don’t. Is this fair Prof Eman?

9. Land ownership and the Common Agricultural Policy
There is no greater manifestation of the wealth divide in the UK than who owns land and who doesn’t: 70% of land in the UK is owned by fewer than 6,000 people. Yet these people are not paying tax on the land they own, they are receiving subsidies for it. Landowners are being paid by the EU to own land. Of the EU budget, 40% goes on agricultural policy. This has created vast amounts of waste. It has propped up inefficient businesses that have failed to modernise. It has re-enforced monopolies which should be broken up. Worst of all, it has meant that African farmers have been unable to compete, depriving millions of a livelihood (not to mention cheaper food for the rest of us). Why endorse an organisation that does this and shows zero inclination to change its ways. It can't be fair Prof Eman.

10. The Common Fishing Policy
60% of EU water is British or Irish. We have not been given any continental land (why should we be?), yet we have had to cede control of our waters to gain EU membership. What was once a huge industry and the largest fishing fleet in Europe has all but disappeared. The French, Italians, Spanish and Greeks had fished out the Mediterranean. They were given access to our waters and our quota was reduced to 13% of the common resource. Let’s have our waters back. It is only fair Prof Eman.

Hope to hear about your students deliberations by Friday.
11 users thanked john_r for this post.
King Lodos on 07/06/2017(UTC), sandid3 on 07/06/2017(UTC), Vince. on 07/06/2017(UTC), jvl on 07/06/2017(UTC), Guest on 07/06/2017(UTC), John Lee on 07/06/2017(UTC), Keith Hilton on 07/06/2017(UTC), Alan Anderson on 07/06/2017(UTC), Alan Selwood on 07/06/2017(UTC), gillyann on 08/06/2017(UTC), xcity on 08/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 07 June 2017 14:15:13(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 480

John_r
Will attempt to respond within the time frame.
But as a starter please note-
-Divorces are never simple, but more often than not acrimonious., rather messy.
-It is children who often suffer most, so it could be with Brexit
-It is bad enough divorcing one partner, but 27 has to be an incredibly complicated, extremely costly, time consuming exercise. Who is paying for all the civil servants and international lawyers who will be engaged in the exercise?
When I first started teaching/lecturing my mentor advised me as follows- Never take on a class, always take on an individual, you will never win with a class.
I am afraid the same applies to us taking on a class of 27, we will not win, irrespective who leads the Brexit talks. The difficulties are clearly demonstrated by the Canadian talks, where one French speaking government, Velonia vetoed it at the last moment, after 10 years of talks. Imagine 27 countries approving every Brexit detail?
In fact Brxit seems to mm to be a somewhat pedestrian approach.
to save costs we sell the family car and opt for public service, but we forget to fqactor in the cost of it, and the advantages of a car.
jvl
Posted: 07 June 2017 14:21:25(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,125

Thanks: 1062 times
Was thanked: 1924 time(s) in 754 post(s)
Prof Eman;47699 wrote:
Imagine 27 countries approving every Brexit detail?


Imagine 27 mostly socialist, protectionist, countries approving every trade deal and regulation.

That's what has had to happen for over 30 years for us to get even rubbish, watered-down, trade deals with the rest of the world that don't reflect our particular national needs.

That's why we're leaving.
3 users thanked jvl for this post.
King Lodos on 07/06/2017(UTC), Alan Selwood on 07/06/2017(UTC), xcity on 08/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 07 June 2017 15:18:37(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 480

John_r
A qickie, to respond within the time frame.
1. 27 countries disagree with you on this point.
2.They have all had their problems-
Iceland's probs are well known in the UK. The action they took has given them the turn around. Norway's politicians seem to be living for the long term (support for the SMP indicates that within the UK) rather than our for the short term. They invested their oil money unlike us wasting it.
Switzerland is known for its neutrality and has lived off it for many years. The also hold regular referenda.
Their successes seem to be thanks to the quality of their management rather than anything else.
3. Regulation is necessary in civilised societies, but always a bone of contention by some.
4.Doubtful you can reform it from outside. youth unemployment is a problem, but they seem to think they can solve it from within, as is clear from recent elections within the EU.
5. Immigration has not been shown to be excessive, at present. an imaginary problem hyped up by some media outlets. Some 10% of UK workers are from the EU, to replace and maintain an ageing population. They could also be used to develop our infrastructure.
6. A Trumped up trade deal, which could TIP our NHS into privacy is unlikely to be th3 golden answer to our trade problems.
Other countries are also not so easy to trade with for example India, which wants more emigration to the UK.
7. Do not know where your figures come from, so unable to respond.
8.The EU with its proportional representation is more accounatble than the UK's First past the post system.
Did you vote for TM as prime minister. No you did not! so why should you vote for Jean-
Claude Juncker?
Prof Eman
Posted: 07 June 2017 16:02:21(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 480

Apologies had to sort something out. back now
9.Land ownership is a contentious issue throughout the world. I suggest you have a look at Prof Picketty's analysis on the subject.
Agricultural policy has been an issue, but British Farmers through their official bodies are signalling great concern over the demise of EU subsidies.
10.Common fisheries policy. Both Britain and Ireland are surrounded by the sea, so figures should be sea'n in context.
It is a well established fact that fish are being overfished so we need some regulation/control to preserve stocks
Fishing rights going back centuries have been advised and could end up in international courts.
Nothing so simple as taking over our fishing borders.

Overall your taking back is very simple on paper but implementation is incredibly complex.

Couple more things to upset your thinking-
Corbyn is not adopting the Venezualan system, but one fully costed which is more detailed than the Conservative one, although both have been criticised Furthermore the machine for recovery from recession was Communist China. Worth thinking about.
Alan Anderson
Posted: 07 June 2017 18:05:39(UTC)

Joined: 02/04/2012(UTC)
Posts: 171

Thanks: 221 times
Was thanked: 155 time(s) in 80 post(s)
Prof Eman wrote: 'Divorces are never simple . . .'
What kind of(arranged)marriage has 28 partners??
It's a sordid EU-rated gang bang. No need to pay for the upkeep of the brothel when we leave.
4 users thanked Alan Anderson for this post.
Alan Selwood on 07/06/2017(UTC), Guest on 08/06/2017(UTC), jvl on 08/06/2017(UTC), xcity on 08/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 07 June 2017 19:40:32(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 11,046

Thanks: 6166 times
Was thanked: 30411 time(s) in 8333 post(s)
Prof Eman;47703 wrote:
Corbyn is not adopting the Venezualan system, but one fully costed which is more detailed than the Conservative one, although both have been criticised Furthermore the machine for recovery from recession was Communist China. Worth thinking about.


Just on these ..

Corbyn's essentially proposing raising debt and lowering growth .. In essence this is exactly what Greece and Venezuela did, with aggressive Keynesianism – and if you understand the 'debt cycle' (which you need to understand to have a basic grasp of economics), you'll appreciate there are times this is exactly the wrong thing to do.

The Communist China remark seems a bit of a fragment, but a well noted irony of the 20th century is that while Capitalism won and achieved the great 'Revolution', the best countries at managing Capitalism seem to be ex-Communists .. China adopted free market principles and unwound almost every remnant of Mao's Communism – within a single generation average life expectancies went from the mid-40s to mid-70s .. The same trend across East Asia – Vietnam was another example.
1 user thanked King Lodos for this post.
jvl on 08/06/2017(UTC)
Lawny
Posted: 07 June 2017 21:47:14(UTC)

Joined: 24/11/2009(UTC)
Posts: 91

Thanks: 38 times
Was thanked: 79 time(s) in 43 post(s)
john_r;47689 wrote:




3. Regulation should be local
Around 65% of regulation is now set in Brussels. It is of a one-size-fits-all variety, and so often inappropriate to local circumstances. Rather than facilitate progress, regulation hinders it. Yet, once in place, regulation is hard to change. Rather than get cut, it is added to.


No.

Directives are drafted by the Commission as directed by the Presidency and the Council of Ministers. Council of Ministers (ie includes our PM) decides what goes. Regulations, as distinct from Directives, are for each Member State to set based on the DIrective and they vary a lot. Regulatiions are not hard to change and Parliament does it all the time, which is why you see references to specific Acts generally followed by the statement "as amended..." or indeed "The XXX Amendment Regulations (date)". On the other hand, Directives are really hard to establish or to add to, not least because you have to get most Member States (it used to be all of them) to agree and then get European Parliament assent. The Commission can apply infraction proceedings if it thinks a Member State has completely failed to implelement a Directive but these are expensive, take ages and why would we want to be infracted on something that we've agreed is a good thing? Member States can also apply for derrogations to postpone or nullify part of a Directive that they don't think is right for them.

In relation to "one size fits all" one thing that EU expert groups do is agree standards or protocols that affect various stuff such as: what chemicals are safe to use, or how to get electoric gizmos to talk to each other, or a host of other unseen stuff that keeps our modern world going. Since the small states don't have experts on every topic, it often falls to the Germans and us to work these out. For the most part we'll now still have the standards imposed (as manufacturers are unlikely to want to produce two types of every product) but we'll have no say in what the standards should be.

With rapid transport, many things that were once local issues now can be regional or global in no time at all. Or, they are better done over large areas so that stuff simply works as you move around. I'm in my late 50s and all the governments that I can recall have said they want to cut regulation; what they then find is that it is not so easy. Most Regs have been put there for a purpose and if you remove them then either something bad will happen, or someone will be disadvantaged and will complain.

The main EU power is the collected heads of government of each member state, which is somewhat democratic. At the very least, it is designed to ensure those individual nations have clear political route into decisions. Alas, politicians and companies of all persuasions have often used the EU as an excuse for things that they find embarassing when the reality is that your (and my) prime minister has agreed to almost all of the decisions since we joined.

2 users thanked Lawny for this post.
Micawber on 08/06/2017(UTC), chazza on 10/06/2017(UTC)
jvl
Posted: 08 June 2017 08:08:45(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,125

Thanks: 1062 times
Was thanked: 1924 time(s) in 754 post(s)
Ah, that's why we don't need plug adaptors when we travel through the EU because they easily agreed that one at the start of the 40+ years we've been in.

And that's why there's an agreed common language that's been taught to kids in the EU since an early age, so there's not different packaging, no extra translation costs and there's a common real understanding going across nations.

Er...
18 Pages«Previous page1011121314Next page»
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets