Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

The population of London has grown by 1 million or more over the last 10 years . .

And yet is at almost exactly the same level today as it was in 1931, 1939 and 1951.

London depopulated to an abnormally low level in recent decades, it has grown again as it's economy has boomed.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Lets have a conversation about infrastructure spending then.

- We need significant upgrades, much of ours is little changed from Victorian times.

- We should be investing tens of billions more than we are in power, fibre-optic data, road, rail and airport upgrades, it'll pay for itself many times over in economic growth.

- The main reason we are not investing in the infrastructure we need to power growth is Nimbyism and Greeny agendas, not the cost of doing so.

Discuss....



We need to update the infrastructure anyway.... much of ours is simply no longer fit for purpose in modern times, and the investment in it would pay for itself many times over in economic growth.

And again you ignore that almost all of our population increase is down to increased life expectancy, immigrants haven't even replaced the missing millions of young people caused by decades of below replacement level birthrates.

to agree that the is a requirement to update infrastructure is a common place;
to pretend that the amount of infrastructure spending is independent of population is absurd.


to talk of 'missing millions' of people is positively Orwellian.
the simply truth is that the UK has no general labour shortage.


to dismiss balance of trade issues out of hand is interesting: a necessary sacrifice of intelligence for the 'right' views;

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And yet is at almost exactly the same level today as it was in 1931, 1939 and 1951.

London depopulated to an abnormally low level in recent decades, it has grown again as it's economy has boomed.

unbelievable irrelevance


and even more so that Generali (who is rapidly becoming the board idiot) thanked the post

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

unbelievable irrelevance


and even more so that Generali (who is rapidly becoming the board idiot) thanked the post

Cheers CLAPTON. Love you too

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Cheers CLAPTON. Love you too

but you haven't thanked my post


but then I haven't denied the relationship between supply demand and price
or denied that a higher population will require more infrastructure spending than a smaller one
or supported the idea that all aging migrants abandon their own children and grandchildren to return to their place of birth (is that you own intention?
or that balance of payments is a relevant economic issue
.....................

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

to agree that the is a requirement to update infrastructure is a common place;
to pretend that the amount of infrastructure spending is independent of population is absurd.

You seem to be unable to grasp some fairly basic principles.

Infrastructure spending enables economic growth, and pays for itself many times over in the long run.

It makes little difference if you're building it for 60m or 70m or 80m or 100m people, it still pays for itself.

You don't see China not building infrastructure because they have a billion people.... They don't say, "oh well we have too many people so we can't afford new roads"....

to talk of 'missing millions' of people is positively Orwellian.

On this point you are deeply, fundamentally, wrong.

the simply truth is that the UK has no general labour shortage.

Economists all note that close to 0% unemployment is neither desirable nor possible.

Apart from anything else, it's highly inflationary, it's also terrible for productivity, as you're having to hire people that have no desire to work and in many cases have little ability to perform in the jobs at hand.

The desired level of unemployment from an economic perspective, so called "full employment", is somewhere around 4% to 5% or so in the UK.

Unemployment of less than this level will damage productivity and cause inflation.

As a society then, we're better off in aggregate with around 1.6m unemployed than we are with fewer unemployed.

And with unemployment now below 2m and falling fast, we're getting dangerously close to full employment.

Time to open the floodgates....

to dismiss balance of trade issues out of hand is interesting: a necessary sacrifice of intelligence for the 'right' views;

I've dismissed it out of hand because the entire notion of "balance of trade" is economically meaningless, and harkens back to the dark ages of economics where little was understood about globalisation.

Political boundaries are not economic boundaries.

I trade with you, and you trade with me, and the arbitrary lines nationalists like to draw around one patch of mud or another are utterly without relevance.

The notion of imports and exports are an entirely artificial construct that has little practical consequence for people’s economic activities.

Or to quote a rather famous Scottish economist.....

Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded.

When two places trade with one another, this doctrine supposes that, if the balance be even, neither of them either loses or gains; but if it leans in any degree to one side, that one of them loses and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exact equilibrium.

Both suppositions are false.

~Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

but you haven't thanked my post


but then I haven't denied the relationship between supply demand and price
or denied that a higher population will require more infrastructure spending than a smaller one
or supported the idea that all aging migrants abandon their own children and grandchildren to return to their place of birth (is that you own intention?
or that balance of payments is a relevant economic issue
.....................

I'm sorry you feel left out.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel left out.

that's all right:
I'm not too upset, as I do think that imports/exports/ exchange rates are significant economic issues unlike your much thanked fellow travellers.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

that's all right:
I'm not too upset, as I do think that imports/exports/ exchange rates are significant economic issues

Re imports/exports, this is of no relevance WRT Europe, we are a single market with significant political and fiscal integration.

As for currency, I'd be prepared to bet in 30 years we'll be in the Euro and fully integrated into Europe, and in 50 years most of the World will have joined similarly large Federations or Unions, while moving towards global integration.

Within 100 years I rather suspect people will view the concepts of the old nation states as being little more than historic football rivalries in a fully integrated global economic and financial system.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Re imports/exports, this is of no relevance WRT Europe, we are a single market with significant political and fiscal integration.

As for currency, I'd be prepared to bet in 30 years we'll be in the Euro and fully integrated into Europe, and in 50 years most of the World will have joined similarly large Federations or Unions, while moving towards global integration.

Within 100 years I rather suspect people will view the concepts of the old nation states as being little more than historic football rivalries in a fully integrated global economic and financial system.

I didn't know we imported all our food and all our oil/gas from the EU and didn't realise their volume and price made no significant difference to us.


It's good I have you and Generali to help me out like this.


Whilst it would be interesting to have another thread devoted to people view of the economic landscape in 30/50 years time, for the moment the exchange rate and our level of essential imports does significantly affect our well being.