Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

tincans6

CLAPTON wrote: »

you may wish to look up 'marginal cost' in wiki or any economic text book


you may wish to look up 'step change cost' in wiki or any economics text book


you may wish to research the London population change between say the 2001 and 2011 census and the lastest estimates.


you may wish to calculate the likely increase in the number of doctors surgeries over that period.


you may wish to reflect that young people (of whatever origin) will be 20 years older in 20 years time , 30 years older in 30 time, 40 years older in 40 years time ... I'm sure you can continue this series.


thank you for your insight into the DLR : I had a little ride on it back in 1987.

Rather than make a fool of yourself by half baked statements on subjects you don't understand why not point out some actual statistics.

We know that the actual number of GP practices declined by 9% between 1997 and 2007.

Why ? because practices are now larger and more GP's work in each one.

We also know that the number of consultations per person has increased rather significantly. It was 3.9 per person in 1995 and it was 5.4 by 2007.

This could of course be that all the economic migrants are hypochondriacs - or it could be a down to a rapidly ageing resident population. What do you reckon ?

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/General-practice-in-England-an-overview-Sarah-Gregory-The-Kings-Fund-September-2009.pdf



* if you are arguing that in the long run that all costs are marginal, then I would agree with you - although its a philosphical point really, and has no relevance to short or medium term decision making.
However I doubt you are.

Feel free however to post a definition or link to what a step change or a marginal cost is.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by HAMISH_MCTAVISH

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.

Really. Current events suggest that historic issues continue to bubble beneath the surface.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

unbelievable irrelevance


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

:-O


(minimum ten letters of shock)

StevieJ

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Will we have formally changed our name to 'Airstrip One' by then?

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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

Why do you seek to insult posters this way?

Do you not realise how arrogant you sound?

I enjoy your robust defence of your viewpoints Hamish. You are steadfast at least, but this sort of thing lets you down.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Why do you seek to insult posters this way?

It is not an insult, just a statement of fact.

That there is no lump of labour, that the supply of jobs is not fixed, is an incredibly well established economic principle, and it's very, very easy to understand.

It's not even remotely contentious as far as economic principles go, so there is simply no way to challenge the veracity of such assertions.

When people continue to ignore or deny such things, then either they really are unable to understand the concepts, or they have ulterior motives in continuing to spread misinformation.

kabayiri wrote: »

I enjoy your robust defence of your viewpoints Hamish. You are steadfast at least.

The thing is, it's not my 'viewpoint'.

I'm simply quoting the evidence and research which demonstrates the facts, and those facts are very much settled and quite incontrovertible.

You might as well enjoy my 'robust defence' of the earth being round and orbiting the sun....

If the evidence showed EU membership and the free movement of labour was bad for Britain I'd have an entirely different outlook on this.

But it is such an overwhelmingly positive thing for the majority of people that I just do not understand how anyone can think otherwise, or why anyone would want to sabotage the future prospects of the country by trying to leave the EU or limit EU migration.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It is not an insult, just a statement of fact.

That there is no lump of labour, that the supply of jobs is not fixed, is an incredibly well established economic principle, and it's very, very easy to understand.

It's not even remotely contentious as far as economic principles go, so there is simply no way to challenge the veracity of such assertions.

When people continue to ignore or deny such things, then either they really are unable to understand the concepts, or they have ulterior motives in continuing to spread misinformation.



The thing is, it's not my 'viewpoint'.

I'm simply quoting the evidence and research which demonstrates the facts, and those facts are very much settled and quite incontrovertible.

You might as well enjoy my 'robust defence' of the earth being round and orbiting the sun....

If the evidence showed EU membership and the free movement of labour was bad for Britain I'd have an entirely different outlook on this.

But it is such an overwhelmingly positive thing for the majority of people that I just do not understand how anyone can think otherwise, or why anyone would want to sabotage the future prospects of the country by trying to leave the EU or limit EU migration.

could you state the economic universal law clearly and concisely


could you quote the numerous well researched and peer reviewed papers that show this is working exactly according to plan in Greece, Italy and Spain

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
But it is such an overwhelmingly positive thing for the majority of people that I just do not understand how anyone can think otherwise, or why anyone would want to sabotage the future prospects of the country by trying to leave the EU or limit EU migration.

At the risk of sounding like Dr Who (which I have just watched alas), you are merely describing one outcome possibility of many which exist.

Not everyone shares your vision, and in a democracy you have to accept that we can express whatever vision we choose.

TickersPlaysPop

It concerns me that on such important issues, even well read people such as those on this post cannot agree.

So we are left to chose who we believe, who we trust the most. This cannot be a good situation?

i think people are basically sick of the establishment, the deceit, the abuse of power, the impotent UK government after so much has been handed over to the EU.

People will vote UKIP just as a protest vote, to give another group a chance. Which will lead to them doing well in the general election. All the while UKiP maintain as a threat it will give us a chance to grab some power back from The EU.

Which is why we need a "none of the above" on the ballot paper, not a polictical party called 'none of the above' which incidentally has just been prevented from running with that name!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like Dr Who

And since when have you not.....

Not everyone shares your vision, and in a democracy you have to accept that we can express whatever vision we choose.

The economics of the situation have nothing to do with vision.

We can either be in the EU and accept free movement and be better off both for society and the majority of individuals, or we can choose to leave and have both society and the majority of individuals be worse off.

That point is abundantly clear.

Where 'vision' comes into it is that some people think being poorer is a price worth paying to remain stuck in the past, or protect national identity, or whatever.....

However just as in the Scottish Indyref debate, those same people know full well that they cannot win their argument and get what they want if they're honest about the consequences.

That is why we keep seeing these repeated nonsense economic arguments and misleading assertions about migration, about the costs of the EU, etc.

Where people try to proclaim the grass is blue and the sky is green, and the sun orbits around the flat earth, and the lump of labour fallacy is brought up again, and again, and again..

It is of course nothing short of deliberate deception and lies.

Convincing sounding mistruths designed to appeal to emotions and 'common sense' (which is rarely either) in an effort to win over the ill-educated and gullible/naive segments of the population.

I would have far more respect for these posters if I didn't know full well what trickery and deception they were up to.

Just be honest....

Admit you (the generic you, not Kabayiri in particular) don't like foreigners, don't like change, don't like free trade, or free movement, or new developments, or population growth, or whatever.

State clearly that you know full well we'll all be poorer and it will cost us dearly, that our taxes will rise and our incomes fall, that servicing the national debt will become a cripplingly high burden, and then explain why you think it's worth it anyway.

If they did that, I'd disagree, but at least I could respect their honesty....:cool: