BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

Jeremy.89 said:

Is the correct answer that it's impossible to know whether the euro has caused issues in Italy, as there is no carbon copy of the country which then didn't join the euro.

The Euro is an interesting topic, I'd say its pretty impressive how it's weathered the various storms so far.

Lots of political willpower and lots of EU taxpayers money. After all it's The Project and must be preserved at all cost...

Although one day there may be an event that even the EU can't deal with. If/until they go for full political integration etc this will always be hanging over the single currency.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Surely you should care *even more* what is done with it?

Out of interest, how do you explain how the world got out of the great depression, if it wasn't stimulus?

rearmament

I believe that Govt attempts to rebalance the economy will come to nothing. What they could do is not return to the HoP and instead create a political capital in the north.

Partly. But have a look at when lots of public buildings and infrastructure were built.

On Johnson's "leveling up" NIESR thinks it would take him a decade to get there at the rates he's suggested. If he actually sticks at it.

I have to confess that I do not read much of what the lying toad says, so I have no idea of what he aspires to have done in 10 years time.

Whatever the promises I do not believe that Govt is efficient at spending other peoples money to improve the economy.

I fully concede there are exceptions such as regenerating the car industry but I suspect that this was done piecemeal rather than a masterplan.

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

bompington

rjsterry said:

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

You need to read a bit of Hayek and von Mises. TLDR: the economy is too complex for anyone to plan, and central planning (interestingly this extends to fund managers too) will never be able to do better, averaged out over the long term, than break even.

As for private sector being "other peoples' money" - the whole point is that people exchange their money for the things that they would rather have than that money. Therefore the private sector has the incentive to offer the things that people want.
The government has no such incentive.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

Longshot said:

morstar said:

Do we have a strong enough offering (or the ability to create one) to benefit more than we lose?

[Stevo_Mode] Was the EU's any better? [/Stevo_Mode]

Our current performance within the EU is the base measure. I.e. do we do better out than when in?
Now at worrying risk of debating how we measure post EU performance.

why not measure performance prior to joining?

My original point is getting lost.
Stevo is suggesting that the EU is performing badly on a global scale.
My original point is that even if we accept it is, it is quite possible EU countries could be faring even worse if they were outside the EU. It’s perfectly possible it is successfully mitigating significant threats.
I’m not arguing the point either way, just offering balance to the suggestion the EU area is performing badly.
The UK has an opportunity to establish whether Eu membership helps or hinders.

I think we all know that despite being a staunch Remainer SteveO has never seen anything positive in the EU and that is highly unlikely to change.

Since you seem to know everything, why don't you answer my question? I asked you before and you dodged it like Rick did. Wonder why?

I already have

Just saying they are 'mature economies' is not an explanation. Care to expand on that and show some evidence to back that up?

fairly uncontroversial belief that economies see their fastest rate of growth when they are developing and that as they mature the natural rate of growth slows. Therefore you need to compare EU growth rates to other mature economies. By the time you strip out those with natural resources it does not leave many. I am sure there are others but I can only think of Switzerland and Japan. Switzerland is probably the best example and the results are interesting
https://tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/gdp-growth

I have to say I was expecting the comparison with the USA to be a whole lot worse, so much so that I am doubting the data - have we been taken in by propaganda?
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

rjsterry

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

You need to read a bit of Hayek and von Mises. TLDR: the economy is too complex for anyone to plan, and central planning (interestingly this extends to fund managers too) will never be able to do better, averaged out over the long term, than break even.

As for private sector being "other peoples' money" - the whole point is that people exchange their money for the things that they would rather have than that money. Therefore the private sector has the incentive to offer the things that people want.
The government has no such incentive.

Cobblers. Pensioners are more likely to vote: they get a winter fuel allowance and a triple lock on the state pension. People like driving their cars: the government freezes fuel duty for several years even though they know they should be encouraging people to use less fuel.

It was a response to SC's comment about governments spending "other people's money". It isn't. It's the government's.

bompington

rjsterry said:

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

You need to read a bit of Hayek and von Mises. TLDR: the economy is too complex for anyone to plan, and central planning (interestingly this extends to fund managers too) will never be able to do better, averaged out over the long term, than break even.

As for private sector being "other peoples' money" - the whole point is that people exchange their money for the things that they would rather have than that money. Therefore the private sector has the incentive to offer the things that people want.
The government has no such incentive.

Cobblers. Pensioners are more likely to vote: they get a winter fuel allowance and a triple lock on the state pension. People like driving their cars: the government freezes fuel duty for several years even though they know they should be encouraging people to use less fuel.

I didn't say that government won't do what people vote for. I said they won't do the best thing.

rjsterry

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

You need to read a bit of Hayek and von Mises. TLDR: the economy is too complex for anyone to plan, and central planning (interestingly this extends to fund managers too) will never be able to do better, averaged out over the long term, than break even.

As for private sector being "other peoples' money" - the whole point is that people exchange their money for the things that they would rather have than that money. Therefore the private sector has the incentive to offer the things that people want.
The government has no such incentive.

Cobblers. Pensioners are more likely to vote: they get a winter fuel allowance and a triple lock on the state pension. People like driving their cars: the government freezes fuel duty for several years even though they know they should be encouraging people to use less fuel.

I didn't say that government won't do what people vote for. I said they won't do the best thing.

Same applies to private business, surely: they sell what people want, not what's best for them.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Surely you should care *even more* what is done with it?

Out of interest, how do you explain how the world got out of the great depression, if it wasn't stimulus?

rearmament

I believe that Govt attempts to rebalance the economy will come to nothing. What they could do is not return to the HoP and instead create a political capital in the north.

Partly. But have a look at when lots of public buildings and infrastructure were built.

On Johnson's "leveling up" NIESR thinks it would take him a decade to get there at the rates he's suggested. If he actually sticks at it.

I have to confess that I do not read much of what the lying toad says, so I have no idea of what he aspires to have done in 10 years time.

Whatever the promises I do not believe that Govt is efficient at spending other peoples money to improve the economy.

I fully concede there are exceptions such as regenerating the car industry but I suspect that this was done piecemeal rather than a masterplan.

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

That will be something that we never agree upon. I have an unshakeable belief that in nearly all cases the market will perform better than central planning. Yes there is room for Govt but only where the market is inefficient.

People voluntarily give money to the private sector, whereas Govt takes money by compulsion

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

You need to read a bit of Hayek and von Mises. TLDR: the economy is too complex for anyone to plan, and central planning (interestingly this extends to fund managers too) will never be able to do better, averaged out over the long term, than break even.

As for private sector being "other peoples' money" - the whole point is that people exchange their money for the things that they would rather have than that money. Therefore the private sector has the incentive to offer the things that people want.
The government has no such incentive.

Cobblers. Pensioners are more likely to vote: they get a winter fuel allowance and a triple lock on the state pension. People like driving their cars: the government freezes fuel duty for several years even though they know they should be encouraging people to use less fuel.

It was a response to SC's comment about governments spending "other people's money". It isn't. It's the government's.

so the Govt takes money from people earning above £12k and reallocates it to people based upon how many birthdays they have had.

There has to be a better example of the Govt efficiently allocating scarce resources

elbowloh

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Surely you should care *even more* what is done with it?

Out of interest, how do you explain how the world got out of the great depression, if it wasn't stimulus?

rearmament

I believe that Govt attempts to rebalance the economy will come to nothing. What they could do is not return to the HoP and instead create a political capital in the north.

Partly. But have a look at when lots of public buildings and infrastructure were built.

On Johnson's "leveling up" NIESR thinks it would take him a decade to get there at the rates he's suggested. If he actually sticks at it.

I have to confess that I do not read much of what the lying toad says, so I have no idea of what he aspires to have done in 10 years time.

Whatever the promises I do not believe that Govt is efficient at spending other peoples money to improve the economy.

I fully concede there are exceptions such as regenerating the car industry but I suspect that this was done piecemeal rather than a masterplan.

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

That will be something that we never agree upon. I have an unshakeable belief that in nearly all cases the market will perform better than central planning. Yes there is room for Govt but only where the market is inefficient.

People voluntarily give money to the private sector, whereas Govt takes money by compulsion

Depends what you mean by "better". I think in a lots of cases where its about dealing with social issues, the market doesn't see people, only pound signs.

Prisons, probation services, fit to work assessments etc

I think also there are issues where the market is put in charge of H&S where it was previously overseen by the public sector has led to problems. Just see Building Fire Safety sign-offs and Grenfall for an example.

surrey_commuter

elbowloh said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Surely you should care *even more* what is done with it?

Out of interest, how do you explain how the world got out of the great depression, if it wasn't stimulus?

rearmament

I believe that Govt attempts to rebalance the economy will come to nothing. What they could do is not return to the HoP and instead create a political capital in the north.

Partly. But have a look at when lots of public buildings and infrastructure were built.

On Johnson's "leveling up" NIESR thinks it would take him a decade to get there at the rates he's suggested. If he actually sticks at it.

I have to confess that I do not read much of what the lying toad says, so I have no idea of what he aspires to have done in 10 years time.

Whatever the promises I do not believe that Govt is efficient at spending other peoples money to improve the economy.

I fully concede there are exceptions such as regenerating the car industry but I suspect that this was done piecemeal rather than a masterplan.

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

That will be something that we never agree upon. I have an unshakeable belief that in nearly all cases the market will perform better than central planning. Yes there is room for Govt but only where the market is inefficient.

People voluntarily give money to the private sector, whereas Govt takes money by compulsion

Depends what you mean by "better". I think in a lots of cases where its about dealing with social issues, the market doesn't see people, only pound signs.

Prisons, probation services, fit to work assessments etc

I think also there are issues where the market is put in charge of H&S where it was previously overseen by the public sector has led to problems. Just see Building Fire Safety sign-offs and Grenfall for an example.

I did say there were exceptions

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

You need to read a bit of Hayek and von Mises. TLDR: the economy is too complex for anyone to plan, and central planning (interestingly this extends to fund managers too) will never be able to do better, averaged out over the long term, than break even.

As for private sector being "other peoples' money" - the whole point is that people exchange their money for the things that they would rather have than that money. Therefore the private sector has the incentive to offer the things that people want.
The government has no such incentive.

Cobblers. Pensioners are more likely to vote: they get a winter fuel allowance and a triple lock on the state pension. People like driving their cars: the government freezes fuel duty for several years even though they know they should be encouraging people to use less fuel.

It was a response to SC's comment about governments spending "other people's money". It isn't. It's the government's.

Bomp is right. When the government takes over a particular sector it is usually creating a monopoly situation. There is no competition where there is a monopoly so where is the incentive to do better, or to improve the offer to their 'customers'? You could employ armies of inspectors armed with centrally set targets but there's nothing like a bit of market competition to make things better for us consumers/users.

Before people start moaning, there are exceptions where it is better for the state to manage things as has been said already.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

surrey_commuter said:

morstar said:

Longshot said:

morstar said:

Do we have a strong enough offering (or the ability to create one) to benefit more than we lose?

[Stevo_Mode] Was the EU's any better? [/Stevo_Mode]

Our current performance within the EU is the base measure. I.e. do we do better out than when in?
Now at worrying risk of debating how we measure post EU performance.

why not measure performance prior to joining?

My original point is getting lost.
Stevo is suggesting that the EU is performing badly on a global scale.
My original point is that even if we accept it is, it is quite possible EU countries could be faring even worse if they were outside the EU. It’s perfectly possible it is successfully mitigating significant threats.
I’m not arguing the point either way, just offering balance to the suggestion the EU area is performing badly.
The UK has an opportunity to establish whether Eu membership helps or hinders.

I think we all know that despite being a staunch Remainer SteveO has never seen anything positive in the EU and that is highly unlikely to change.

Since you seem to know everything, why don't you answer my question? I asked you before and you dodged it like Rick did. Wonder why?

I already have

Just saying they are 'mature economies' is not an explanation. Care to expand on that and show some evidence to back that up?

fairly uncontroversial belief that economies see their fastest rate of growth when they are developing and that as they mature the natural rate of growth slows. Therefore you need to compare EU growth rates to other mature economies. By the time you strip out those with natural resources it does not leave many. I am sure there are others but I can only think of Switzerland and Japan. Switzerland is probably the best example and the results are interesting
https://tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/gdp-growth

I have to say I was expecting the comparison with the USA to be a whole lot worse, so much so that I am doubting the data - have we been taken in by propaganda?
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Fair points. Japan has its own issues which I think are starting to bite harder in Europe now. Switzerland is interesting as you say.

I think the US is outperforming the EU in the short term, but that is a low bar and I'm not sure about longer term without looking further. In a way it is a bit like the EU in terms of size and various member states which can trade quite freely with each other, but with some decent sized tariff walls on their boundaries. The bigger differences are in the social models, tax etc.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Rick gave you two suggestions, which you seem to be trying hard to miss. The euro has its downsides for sure but Italy has and had plenty of other problems besides. They've have had 61 different governments since 1945.

If he did they were very subtle - I noticed no direct attempt to answer.

I guess getting people on here to look at why the EU economic performance is relatively poor is a sore point because it undermines some of their other arguments on here.

rick_chasey said:

Being fairly Keynesian, id suggest it’s because Europe is still suffering from its decision not to engage counter cyclical fiscal policy as a reaction to the crash (states and China did) and it has more challenging demographics than both those superpowers too.

But then I would say that as it touches on multiple hobby horses of mine.

Thanks - and for my next trick I will get blood out of a stone

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

You need to read a bit of Hayek and von Mises. TLDR: the economy is too complex for anyone to plan, and central planning (interestingly this extends to fund managers too) will never be able to do better, averaged out over the long term, than break even.

As for private sector being "other peoples' money" - the whole point is that people exchange their money for the things that they would rather have than that money. Therefore the private sector has the incentive to offer the things that people want.
The government has no such incentive.

Cobblers. Pensioners are more likely to vote: they get a winter fuel allowance and a triple lock on the state pension. People like driving their cars: the government freezes fuel duty for several years even though they know they should be encouraging people to use less fuel.

It was a response to SC's comment about governments spending "other people's money". It isn't. It's the government's.

so the Govt takes money from people earning above £12k and reallocates it to people based upon how many birthdays they have had.

There has to be a better example of the Govt efficiently allocating scarce resources

I wasn't suggesting it was an example of efficiently allocating resources. That said, they are spending resources on those most likely to vote - rather a load of new youth centres or properly funding legal aid - so there is an efficiency there. But the main point was that there is competition between parties (and not just every 5 years).

The trouble with the mantra about market efficiency is it presupposes that people can accurately assess the value of different offerings and will rationally select the best fit, when people are not rational and are terrible at objectively evaluating options.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Surely you should care *even more* what is done with it?

Out of interest, how do you explain how the world got out of the great depression, if it wasn't stimulus?

rearmament

I believe that Govt attempts to rebalance the economy will come to nothing. What they could do is not return to the HoP and instead create a political capital in the north.

Partly. But have a look at when lots of public buildings and infrastructure were built.

On Johnson's "leveling up" NIESR thinks it would take him a decade to get there at the rates he's suggested. If he actually sticks at it.

I have to confess that I do not read much of what the lying toad says, so I have no idea of what he aspires to have done in 10 years time.

Whatever the promises I do not believe that Govt is efficient at spending other peoples money to improve the economy.

I fully concede there are exceptions such as regenerating the car industry but I suspect that this was done piecemeal rather than a masterplan.

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

That will be something that we never agree upon. I have an unshakeable belief that in nearly all cases the market will perform better than central planning. Yes there is room for Govt but only where the market is inefficient.

People voluntarily give money to the private sector, whereas Govt takes money by compulsion

It sounds more like a religion than something based on science.

bompington

rjsterry said:

The trouble with the mantra about market efficiency is it presupposes that people can accurately assess the value of different offerings and will rationally select the best fit, when people are not rational and are terrible at objectively evaluating options.

No, it doesn't. Like I said, read Hayek and von Mises.

And I like the subtle characterisation - deliberate or otherwise - of what is actually a mathematical theorem as a mantra.

rick_chasey

There are clearly parts of the economy where private enterprise does not work effectively.

All of the emergency services (I don't think any of us would want private police?!), military, natural monopolies, and on areas where the prisoner's dilemma takes hold (e.g. flood defences, environmental action). I would also say most infrastructure works best when it is publicly run too.

Makes sense for states to run education too, and arguably healthcare.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

I think they're about as good as anyone else. Some stuff they get right, other stuff they make a colossal mess of. And the private sector really is using other people's money.

You need to read a bit of Hayek and von Mises. TLDR: the economy is too complex for anyone to plan, and central planning (interestingly this extends to fund managers too) will never be able to do better, averaged out over the long term, than break even.

As for private sector being "other peoples' money" - the whole point is that people exchange their money for the things that they would rather have than that money. Therefore the private sector has the incentive to offer the things that people want.
The government has no such incentive.

Cobblers. Pensioners are more likely to vote: they get a winter fuel allowance and a triple lock on the state pension. People like driving their cars: the government freezes fuel duty for several years even though they know they should be encouraging people to use less fuel.

It was a response to SC's comment about governments spending "other people's money". It isn't. It's the government's.

Bomp is right. When the government takes over a particular sector it is usually creating a monopoly situation. There is no competition where there is a monopoly so where is the incentive to do better, or to improve the offer to their 'customers'? You could employ armies of inspectors armed with centrally set targets but there's nothing like a bit of market competition to make things better for us consumers/users.

Before people start moaning, there are exceptions where it is better for the state to manage things as has been said already.

Building Inspectors all used to be employed by local authorities. Then Approved Inspectors were brought in. The cost has gone down, but unfortunately so has the quality.

At its worst it seems highly likely that this contributed to Grenfell.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

There are clearly parts of the economy where private enterprise does not work effectively.

All of the emergency services (I don't think any of us would want private police?!), military, natural monopolies, and on areas where the prisoner's dilemma takes hold (e.g. flood defences, environmental action). I would also say most infrastructure works best when it is publicly run too.

Makes sense for states to run education too, and arguably healthcare.

US seems to be outsourcing large parts of it's military, time will tell if that is a good thing.

Try and it it as a default position of the market is best but if for whatever reason the market is failing then see if state intervention would be more efficient

rjsterry

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

The trouble with the mantra about market efficiency is it presupposes that people can accurately assess the value of different offerings and will rationally select the best fit, when people are not rational and are terrible at objectively evaluating options.

No, it doesn't. Like I said, read Hayek and von Mises.

And I like the subtle characterisation - deliberate or otherwise - of what is actually a mathematical theorem as a mantra.

What specifically? I have a pile of books to get through. Better still make the point directly.

Longshot

rick_chasey said:

There are clearly parts of the economy where private enterprise does not work effectively.

All of the emergency services (I don't think any of us would want private police?!), military, natural monopolies, and on areas where the prisoner's dilemma takes hold (e.g. flood defences, environmental action). I would also say most infrastructure works best when it is publicly run too.

Makes sense for states to run education too, and arguably healthcare.

...and supply of water and possibly gas (given its significant use in heating).

surrey_commuter

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

There are clearly parts of the economy where private enterprise does not work effectively.

All of the emergency services (I don't think any of us would want private police?!), military, natural monopolies, and on areas where the prisoner's dilemma takes hold (e.g. flood defences, environmental action). I would also say most infrastructure works best when it is publicly run too.

Makes sense for states to run education too, and arguably healthcare.

...and supply of water and possibly gas (given its significant use in heating).

if gas then surely electricity. Other strategic industries would have to include telecoms, postal service, airlines, railway, natural resource exploration and extraction?

Longshot

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

There are clearly parts of the economy where private enterprise does not work effectively.

All of the emergency services (I don't think any of us would want private police?!), military, natural monopolies, and on areas where the prisoner's dilemma takes hold (e.g. flood defences, environmental action). I would also say most infrastructure works best when it is publicly run too.

Makes sense for states to run education too, and arguably healthcare.

...and supply of water and possibly gas (given its significant use in heating).

if gas then surely electricity. Other strategic industries would have to include telecoms, postal service, airlines, railway, natural resource exploration and extraction?

Maybe electricity. The rest I don't care. Water is an essential for life and heating is close to that which is why I would like to see these supplies under Govt control.

rick_chasey

Is water a problem in the UK?

surrey_commuter

Longshot said:

surrey_commuter said:

Longshot said:

rick_chasey said:

There are clearly parts of the economy where private enterprise does not work effectively.

All of the emergency services (I don't think any of us would want private police?!), military, natural monopolies, and on areas where the prisoner's dilemma takes hold (e.g. flood defences, environmental action). I would also say most infrastructure works best when it is publicly run too.

Makes sense for states to run education too, and arguably healthcare.

...and supply of water and possibly gas (given its significant use in heating).

if gas then surely electricity. Other strategic industries would have to include telecoms, postal service, airlines, railway, natural resource exploration and extraction?

Maybe electricity. The rest I don't care. Water is an essential for life and heating is close to that which is why I would like to see these supplies under Govt control.

surely it would be nicer if Govt was in charge of fracking and clear up in North Sea. Telecoms would ensure that fibre was to every corner of the country as soon as possible. What about gtee flights to unprofitable regional airports? post is an important lifeline to many vulnerable people in our society.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Is water a problem in the UK?

Yes. Most people live in the driest bit.

rjsterry

Worth noting that the rail network was set up entirely under private initiative, as was the canal network before it.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Is water a problem in the UK?

Not really, because it is a monopoly under government control already, just not government ownership.

rjsterry

A lot of them went bust after a fairly short period though.