Total Debt as a Proportion of GDP

Linda_D_2

molerat wrote: »

We are not effectively utilising the current population, do we necessarily need to replace at 1 for 1 on this overcrowded island ?

Unfortunately that is the truth, we have many millions unemployed, many millions in part time work wanting to work full time, many millions in pretend self employed non work to up their benefits, many millions of skilled people doing mundane jobs because there aren't the opportunities.

We already have far too many people in this country and a huge lack of jobs.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's just, well, nonsense though.....

When the ratio of working age people to old people drops in half, productivity and taxation on earnings would have to double just to stand still....

Far better to keep the ratio the same and let people keep more of that productivity/earnings gain rather than taking most or all of it to support the old.

Why is it better to import huge number of people rather than improve productivity?
WHY WHY WHY?


Why is it far better to smash the opportunities for young people in London and the SE from establishing a home and family?


Why is it better to break up families in these much poorer foreign countries?


Why do you wish them so much harm?
Is that because you don't give damn about anyone except the people of Aberdeen?


Why aren't you concerned about the growing imbalance between imports and exports ?


You have already posted about the potential to improve productivity by huge amounts :
ARE YOU NOW SAYING YOU WERE WRONG?


Why do you ignore the ethical and moral issue about seriously damaging already poor countries?
Seems to me a very unethical and racial undertone here.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

Why is it better to import huge number of people rather than improve productivity?
WHY WHY WHY?

Because with the ratio of young to old set to almost halve, we'd need to double productivity just to stand still!!!

Why do you want people to work twice as hard for no more gain just to keep foreigners out? WHY? WHY? WHY?

Why not keep the ratio the same, and let the increase in productivity/wages go to the workers rather than the government to fund old people?

Why is it far better to smash the opportunities for young people in London and the SE from establishing a home and family?

Why not just BUILD SOME MORE HOUSES?

Why aren't you concerned about the growing imbalance between imports and exports ?

Because it's of no relevance whatsoever.

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

You have already posted about the potential to improve productivity by huge amounts :
ARE YOU NOW SAYING YOU WERE WRONG?

Productivity will increase by huge amounts.

But you completely fail to grasp the enormity of the challenge that we will face if the ratio of young to old worsens as dramatically as is forecast.

Productivity would need to double just to stand still, and standing still is nowhere near good enough.

Why do you want to steal the future productivity gains from the young and give them to the old?

When by simply replacing our missing millions of young, much of those productivity gains could be kept by the future generations.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Because with the ratio of young to old set to almost halve, we'd need to double productivity just to stand still!!!

Why do you want people to work twice as hard for no more gain just to keep foreigners out? WHY? WHY? WHY?

Why not keep the ratio the same, and let the increase in productivity/wages go to the workers rather than the government to fund old people?




Why not just BUILD SOME MORE HOUSES?




Because it's of no relevance whatsoever.

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.....





Productivity will increase by huge amounts.

But you completely fail to grasp the enormity of the challenge that we will face if the ratio of young to old worsens as dramatically as is forecast.

Productivity would need to double just to stand still, and standing still is nowhere near good enough.

Why do you want to steal the future productivity gains from the young and give them to the old?

When by simply replacing our missing millions of young, much of those productivity gains could be kept by the future generations.

Improving productivity has nothing to do with people working twice as hard : you KNOW this ; why are you being deliberately misleading?


Doubling production over say 20 years means only 5% per year


YOU KNOW THIS IS POSSIBLE DON'T YOU or are you saying you were wrong previously?


Plus we don't need to meet 5% per year as 'older ' workers are both willing and capable of working longer but today they lack employment opportunities because there is NO shortage of cheap labour.
Plus we have an whole underclass of unemployed who could do useful work that would help them directly as well as help the country.




Your comments about imports / exports / balance of trade / foreign debts / payments etc is so unbelievable that I doubt either your sanity or integrity.


You really believe we can import oil, gas, food etc without paying for them?


Sorry impossible to have a rational conversation with some-one with these views.


Your indifference to the ethical issues is sadly shocking but not unexpected.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Improving productivity has nothing to do with people working twice as hard : you KNOW this ; why are you being deliberately misleading?


Doubling production over say 20 years means only 5% per year


YOU KNOW THIS IS POSSIBLE DON'T YOU or are you saying you were wrong previously?


Plus we don't need to meet 5% per year as 'older ' workers are both willing and capable of working longer but today they lack employment opportunities because there is NO shortage of cheap labour.
Plus we have an whole underclass of unemployed who could do useful work that would help them directly as well as help the country.




Your comments about imports / exports / balance of trade / foreign debts / payments etc is so unbelievable that I doubt either your sanity or integrity.


You really believe we can import oil, gas, food etc without paying for them?


Sorry impossible to have a rational conversation with some-one with these views.


Your indifference to the ethical issues is sadly shocking but not unexpected.

Well over the last 20 years, productivity increased by 38% in the UK

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/productivity/labour-productivity/q1-2014/rftxlprod02q114.xls

and that was during an unprecedented era of technological change. How do you propose the UK more than double productivity increases?

globalds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham_Devon
Hamish, where do you get the graph from?

Can't remember.

Hmm ..So better not to post

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Well over the last 20 years, productivity increased by 38% in the UK

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/productivity/labour-productivity/q1-2014/rftxlprod02q114.xls

and that was during an unprecedented era of technological change. How do you propose the UK more than double productivity increases?

As you know, because you 'THANKED' Hamish's post, it's easy to automate almost all jobs in the UK but that would 'reduce the tax take and lead to socio-economic collapse.
Why did you thank that nonsense if you don't believe it?


Do you not know any economics?
do you not know about supply and demand determining price?
do you not think that supply /demand / price applies to the price of labour?
do you think the shortage of labour will increase its price?
do you think that an increase in the price of labour will lead to finding substitutes for labour?


did you actually study economics at all?




do you think that the current price of labour suggests a shortage or an adequate supply?


do you think we need to 'store ' a supply of labour because we may have a shortage in 10 years times


does your current employer do that?


in any event do you acknowledge the harm being done to the already poorer countries we are 'exploiting'?

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's easy to automate almost all jobs in the UK

Is 'automation' synonymous with 'increase in productivity' then?

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

As you know, because you 'THANKED' Hamish's post, it's easy to automate almost all jobs in the UK but that would 'reduce the tax take and lead to socio-economic collapse.
Why did you thank that nonsense if you don't believe it?


Do you not know any economics?
do you not know about supply and demand determining price?
do you not think that supply /demand / price applies to the price of labour?
do you think the shortage of labour will increase its price?
do you think that an increase in the price of labour will lead to finding substitutes for labour?


did you actually study economics at all?




do you think that the current price of labour suggests a shortage or an adequate supply?


do you think we need to 'store ' a supply of labour because we may have a shortage in 10 years times


does your current employer do that?


in any event do you acknowledge the harm being done to the already poorer countries we are 'exploiting'?

Erm what do you think happens to the demand for labour as the population increases?

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

why not show the effects of different level of productivity improvement so we can produce the same level of goods and service with the reduced work force

This is why there's no point debating by facts with UKIPers show them overwhelming evidence and they'll ignore it and try and change the subject.

You might as well say "Why not show what would happen if every garden in the country sprouted a tree that produced solid gold coins?" as it'd be about as useful to the discussion.

If you have some great ideas to increase productivity faster then get them enacted, then once they start working and it's viable to cut immigration there could be a credible argument for doing so.