If we vote for Brexit what happens

Moby

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Correlation doesn't imply causation. Human scientific progress is responsible for the increase in (some people's) standard of living.

It is debatable how much neoliberal capitalism, its baked in inequality and unsustainable dependence on exponentially growing debt, is helping or hindering this now.

Exactly right. Contrast India with say Sweden............two very different models. Culture, science, history, religion etc all play a part in outcomes. Look at China, a one party communist state which is using sheer numbers and cheap labour to out produce and out compete the shining star of the capitalist world........but Trump has a plan!:eek:

cells

Generali wrote: »

Interesting that it just happened to capitalist countries then.

The economic enablers were put in place by the state not by private enterprise. Specifically I am thinking about the electricity grids that powered the economic booms in the west from 1950-1990 and truely made the west rich whereas before that they were quite poor. As far as I an aware even in the USA most their power stations and grid systems were put in place by government. Likewise in China they started to rapidly develop once they entered the electricity age in about 1990s

So although I agree with you that capitalism works better than communism I can't see an example of nations whereby the economic enablers were put in place by private business. You need the state to set up a reliable grid and power stations and some ports and roads and rail and then capatilisn can take over. Something the rich west should gift to the poor nations a basic starting infrastructure of ports and power stations better than sending over second hand cloths as aid

cells

Moby wrote: »

Exactly right. Contrast India with say Sweden............two very different models. Culture, science, history, religion etc all play a part in outcomes. Look at China, a one party communist state which is using sheer numbers and cheap labour to out produce and out compete the shining star of the capitalist world........but Trump has a plan!:eek:

There is also an element of luck.
Sweden had a lot of luck in the form of lots of hydro power which were built out and used as economic enablers

The USA has very abundant very cheap coal and oil and a lot of hydro too. The UK and Germany were also gifted with a lot of coal

The world wars also helped Europe and the USA mechanise and learn how to mass produced goods and how to mobilise the whole economy and put people into more productive jobs rather than have almost everyone in the lowest productivity role of subsistence farmers.

The green revolution also played its part. The west got very good at growing crops very projectively all the while India and China and many other countries were starving as they had yet to learn of crop selection and breeding and pest resistance etc. Even when the Americans effectively went out to these poor countries and tried to teach them about the green revolution those countries improved a lot but the information never reached the subsistence farmers even today lots of people on the world farm like they did a thousand years ago.

Education also played a big part. Something as simple as reading allows information to travil and spread and things like good farming or building or medical practises to take hold.


So its been a lot of factors which made the west rich before the rest. However even China and Russia are bow a lot richer than they were 30 years ago again tanks to these non economic model specific traits of education urbanisation mechanisation.

cells

Anyway back to the referendum.

I'm thinking of not voting as I simply have no idea which way is going to be the best road (or least worst).

My two biggest factors for each side is that the £10 billion (or thereabouts) annual net contribution is a lot of money and not paying that would be a big advantage and that UK based laws and regulations are more likely to be postivie for us than 28 Nations eulea and regs so that's my main pull factor for voting out. The biggest advantage I see of staying in is that I think a growing population is a huge benefit to the economy and Jobs and the vast majority of the existing population and that leaving would cause at least a temporary few years fall in output causing taxes to go up or debt to go up and services to go down.

I am not convinced which side has the greater net positives so for now its a non vote

mwpt

cells wrote: »

Anyway back to the referendum.

I'm thinking of not voting as I simply have no idea which way is going to be the best road (or least worst).

My two biggest factors for each side is that the £10 billion (or thereabouts) annual net contribution is a lot of money and not paying that would be a big advantage

This all reduces to a question of what you think is the right scale for social distribution to work. London subsidises much of the rest of the UK. Is London the right size to pull out of the UK and become a city state, not subject to the whims of the voters in the rest of the UK, where we can control who we let inside our (London) borders? It works well enough for Singapore.

That could work, but I don't want it to because ultimately this is short term thinking. London benefits from having access to the talent, goods, services etc from the rest of the UK and it is most likely long term beneficial to London to subsidise the rest of the UK.

I believe the same applies to the UK and EU. As money is used to build infrastructure and assist the rest of the EU, particularly the less wealthy states, they will in the long term become consumers and traders with the UK. Having low barrier to trade and free movement of goods and services, in the same way that London does to the rest of UK is an enabler for this.

So, the brexiteers like to say they're on the side of long term thinking but I don't think they are really.

So on the whole, for my own self interest but also in terms of long term benefits and stability, I would vote in.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

This all reduces to a question of what you think is the right scale for social distribution to work. London subsidises much of the rest of the UK. Is London the right size to pull out of the UK and become a city state, not subject to the whims of the voters in the rest of the UK, where we can control who we let inside our (London) borders? It works well enough for Singapore.

That could work, but I don't want it to because ultimately this is short term thinking. London benefits from having access to the talent, goods, services etc from the rest of the UK and it is most likely long term beneficial to London to subsidise the rest of the UK.

I believe the same applies to the UK and EU. As money is used to build infrastructure and assist the rest of the EU, particularly the less wealthy states, they will in the long term become consumers and traders with the UK. Having low barrier to trade and free movement of goods and services, in the same way that London does to the rest of UK is an enabler for this.

So, the brexiteers like to say they're on the side of long term thinking but I don't think they are really.

So on the whole, for my own self interest but also in terms of long term benefits and stability, I would vote in.

if the right scale for social distribution of work were 'really' the issue then you would be talking about why the EU isn't activity looking to join with Russia or the middle east or north african countries : would they not benefit from low barrier to trade and free money?
why only discussing about white christian countries?

would we not be discussing the damage the EU has inflicted on third world developing countries by denying them access to the EU for their agriculatural products.

real 'union' is about shared cultural values, transparent democratic accountability and general acceptance amoungst the populations concerned.

economic benefits can be achieved via free trade of goods and services and not forced merging of different value systems.

the future will be free trade : the alternative is the Yugoslavia / Soviet Union outcome

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

Respected Tory MP Sarah Wollaston quits Leave campaign over 'false' NHS claims

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sarah-wollaston-eu-referendum-quits-vote-leave-campaign-false-nhs-claims-350-a7071906.html


Sarah, the vote leave battlebus has been driving around the country with these lies on it for months, and only now you realise it? What an idiot. :rotfl:

we agree
she isn't anyone to pay attention to.

michaels

mayonnaise wrote: »

Respected Tory MP Sarah Wollaston quits Leave campaign over 'false' NHS claims

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sarah-wollaston-eu-referendum-quits-vote-leave-campaign-false-nhs-claims-350-a7071906.html


Sarah, the vote leave battlebus has been driving around the country with these lies on it for months, and only now you realise it? What an idiot. :rotfl:

I wonder if this career move was planned from the outset?

Surely you can support out but not join the campaign if you don't like the campaign? Why would the campaign stretching the truth over a 5bn rebate change which way you would vote. 5Bn is a rounding error.

Generali

cells wrote: »

The economic enablers were put in place by the state not by private enterprise. Specifically I am thinking about the electricity grids that powered the economic booms in the west from 1950-1990 and truely made the west rich whereas before that they were quite poor. As far as I an aware even in the USA most their power stations and grid systems were put in place by government. Likewise in China they started to rapidly develop once they entered the electricity age in about 1990s

So although I agree with you that capitalism works better than communism I can't see an example of nations whereby the economic enablers were put in place by private business. You need the state to set up a reliable grid and power stations and some ports and roads and rail and then capatilisn can take over. Something the rich west should gift to the poor nations a basic starting infrastructure of ports and power stations better than sending over second hand cloths as aid

Yeah cells, if you ignore the 200 years of the industrial revolution prior to the 1950s and ignore the fact that non-Capitalist countries also got electricity at the same time yet didn't get the same lift-off in incomes, wealth and life-expectancy then you are probably right.

Then again if you ignore the facts then you can prove just about anything.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

The industrial revolutions prior to the electricity revolution were very small impact compared to the electricity revolution

The UK was the worlds super power yet some school children went to school without shoes they were that poor. That is 3rd world type poverty. Even if you look at some London photos well after 1900 you can see true 3rd world poverty. If the 200 years of industrial revolutions before electricity were all that fantastic why were there 3rd world conditions in superpower Britain?

The conditions and wealth of the west only really improved after electricity. Not the first day it was discovered or the first batteries but when there was a reliable robust affordable grid which was sometime in the 1940-1950s period for the USA and western Europe.


You could also ask why was India or turkey so poor when they were capatilist nations why did they only really start developing circa 1990 and 2000?

You may be the worlds best capatilist businessman but if you don't have electricity to run your factories or offices or other infrastructure like hospitals and schools then it doesnt matter you will be a subsistence farmer or selling fruit by the roadside

one could say that the UK pre war was relatively rich compared to non industrial nations
its per capita income would have been much higher if the methods of birth control had been better and the population was constrained.

one might note that India was a socialist country that activiely discouraged foreign investment until relatively recently


clearly electricity is a major factor in our ability to improve the lives of the people, but Venezuela has electricity but is still a socialist basket case, however much admired by Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and Livingstone (and Moby of course).

It is the relatively free market plus good governance plus appropriate government regulation and intervention plus population constraint that allows a country to prosper relative to its neighbours.