UK Elections

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: UK Elections

Post by cassowary » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:03 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:05 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:28 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:03 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:38 am
I believe I was the only member of this forum who believed Jeremy Corbyn would do a lot better than most people expected. They may have forgotten that leftist values are well and alive in the world, and that lots of people have not given up on a socially minded state. Many people - and a majority of young people - want such policies and have voted for Labour in the UK. Socialism isn't dead yet and I don't think it will ever be.
You're right, you did predict that. I expect that it was about the UK's role in Europe and about social tolerance towards immigrants, not about "socialism", but it would take exit polling to know for sure.
I agree with SteveF, Sertorio. Whilst your forecast of the election result proved accurate, your conclusion that the result is a signal that leftist values are alive and well is mistaken. A vote signalling loss of confidence in Theresa May and the government she leads does not necessarily imply a vote in favour of revived :?: "left values": however much Jeremy Corbyn might proclaim these as his own.
If you read Labour's Manifesto you will see that many of those socialist ideals were present there. For instance, improvement on the NHS, doing away with university fees, more social security, nationalisation of railways and utilities... Many people are tired of the civil war neo-liberalism imposes on societies. Survival of the fittest is something that only appeals to the minority at the top of society. Corbyn understood it and offered people hope rather than dispair. That's why people voted Labour. And next time this vote will be big enough to allow Corbyn to become prime minister.
My view is the opposite. I think Corbyn did well this time because Theresa May made the mistake of moving to the left. She should have stuck with pro-growth policies. You cannot win by shifting left. The left will then go further left. You can only win by giving people a clear choice - economic growth, but unequal vs the left's economic stagnation and equality.

neverfail
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: UK Elections

Post by neverfail » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:11 am

But was not the big issue in this recent election Brexit?

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is this Corbyn character living in la-la land?

Post by Sertorio » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:11 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:53 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:18 am
neverfail wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:52 am
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... government

(Quote). Corbyn said the great repeal bill, designed to transfer EU law into British law to enable changes to regulations, “has now become history” and said Labour would offer something different. “We will put forward a position in which we negotiate tariff-free access to the European market and legislate after that,” he said.

Yes and I can just imagine the EU negotiators laughing in his face.

Get real, Jeremy!
A free trade agreement between the EU and the UK makes a lot of sense and would benefit both parties. And it would be a lot easier to achieve than any other alternative.
Given that it would now be in the best interests of the EU to make an example of Britain by making its exit as costly as possible (to deter other EU member states from following the same path) I doubt whether the EU negotiators could afford to grant Britain such plum concession.

In terms of the flow of mercantile trade between the two such an arrangement would be of very unequal value to the two. Given that the UK has by far the smaller number of consumers along with a floating pound that can be easily bidded down in relation to the Euro: any open free trade agreement between the EU and the UK would be bound to massively benefit the export trade of the latter rather than the former.

What pisses me off is the way both sides of politics in the UK (Theresa May campaigned on the same bogus theme) are pretending to the UK public that Britain can still have its EU cake whilst eating it. If they were honest instead of being politically opportunistic they would warn the British public that there are tough times ahead post-Brexit. Instead they are both raising false public hopes and expectations by pretending that Britain will still have a beneficial future trading relationship with the EU: as long as WE are in government doing the negotiating and not this (ugh) other crowd.
Either one thinks that free trade is in principle a good thing or one doesn't. And nothing requires that the two economies trading with each other must be of equal size. They must be equally developed, but their sizes may be quite different. Otherwise, for instance, Singapore could never hope to trade freely with any other industrial country... For the EU a very developed 60 million people market is definitely interesting. And, of course, continuing to be able to sell goods to a 450 million people market is also interesting for the UK. Both would benefit from such free trade, so it would be stupid not to take advantage of it...

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: UK Elections

Post by cassowary » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:25 am

Sertorio,

Undeveloped countries tend to have lower wages. So they can do the labour intensive jobs. So yes, it is possible for less developed countries to trade successfully with developed ones.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: the horse came in a good second place - so what?

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:24 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:34 pm
A business could be profitable in a close economy, and not competitive in a free trade area. That's why free trade only works to everybody's advantage when the trading economies are equally developed.
These two sentences may be adjacent, but that doesn't make them related.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: UK Elections

Post by Sertorio » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:50 pm

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:25 am
Sertorio,

Undeveloped countries tend to have lower wages. So they can do the labour intensive jobs. So yes, it is possible for less developed countries to trade successfully with developed ones.
Which labour intensive jobs? Through automation developed countries can outperform less developed economies dependent on unskilled labour. Thism is the 21st century, Cass...

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: the horse came in a good second place - so what?

Post by Sertorio » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:52 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:24 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:34 pm
A business could be profitable in a close economy, and not competitive in a free trade area. That's why free trade only works to everybody's advantage when the trading economies are equally developed.
These two sentences may be adjacent, but that doesn't make them related.
You do have some problems understanding economic processes...

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: UK Elections

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:16 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:50 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:25 am
Sertorio,

Undeveloped countries tend to have lower wages. So they can do the labour intensive jobs. So yes, it is possible for less developed countries to trade successfully with developed ones.
Which labour intensive jobs? Through automation developed countries can outperform less developed economies dependent on unskilled labour. Thism is the 21st century, Cass...
Specifically 2017, a year in which not all labour intensive work has been automated. I agree the potential is there, but let's not mistake the future for the present.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: UK Elections

Post by cassowary » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:59 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:50 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:25 am
Sertorio,

Undeveloped countries tend to have lower wages. So they can do the labour intensive jobs. So yes, it is possible for less developed countries to trade successfully with developed ones.
Which labour intensive jobs? Through automation developed countries can outperform less developed economies dependent on unskilled labour. Thism is the 21st century, Cass...
Not all jobs can be automated - yet. That is why the US has trade deficits with countries like Mexico and China which have lower wages. That's what Trump has been complaining about. At one stage during his election campaign, he even threatened to impose a 40% tariff on goods from these countries.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: UK Elections

Post by Sertorio » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:25 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:59 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:50 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:25 am
Sertorio,

Undeveloped countries tend to have lower wages. So they can do the labour intensive jobs. So yes, it is possible for less developed countries to trade successfully with developed ones.
Which labour intensive jobs? Through automation developed countries can outperform less developed economies dependent on unskilled labour. Thism is the 21st century, Cass...
Not all jobs can be automated - yet. That is why the US has trade deficits with countries like Mexico and China which have lower wages. That's what Trump has been complaining about. At one stage during his election campaign, he even threatened to impose a 40% tariff on goods from these countries.
It's not low labour costs alone that makes them competitive, it is the fact that productivity in some sectors is approaching industrialized countries standards while their skilled labour is much cheaper than similar labour in developed countries. But to reach that point less developed countries must invest heavily in technology, state of the art equipment and top notch management, and most of them do not have the means to invest as heavily as necessary. Deliberately starving them of money - as often happens - will hinder their progress.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Sertorio and 2 guests