Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Fella

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Fella, i cant comment on the mirror but i do read the guardian, and i dont recall seeing anything that I would consider stoking hatred. Are you able to give me an example of something you would consider such?

Anything by Owen Jones for starters.

Let's start with his most recent article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/15/fanned-flames-fascism-politicians-newspapers-charlottesville

As with everything he's ever written, designed to stoke hatred against every person & group (Farage, Trump, "elites" etc) who don't share his world view.

"Yes, racists and fascists are enabled and empowered by elites on both sides of the Atlantic; and yes, not just by their hatred, but by an economic order that generates needless misery and insecurity, which the bigoted can exploit.

They are the guilty men – the hatred, the chaos and the violence is on them. And as the racists and the fascists continue to march and unleash violent chaos, their enablers must be held accountable."

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

These are all controlled by foreign ownership.

Being foreign isn't so much the issue. More that there appears to be little to no regulation over content etc.

Rusty_Shackleton

Fella, in all seriousness, can you give me an example, from that Jones article, whixh is stoking hatred towards a person or group, rather than highlighting something what that person/group has said or done.

For example would you consider this stoking hate against those involved:

Those goose-stepping marchers in Charlottesville, those racists and fascists

Because the people he's talking about were wearing swastikas, include KKK members, and one of them murdered a woman and injured 20 more by ramming them with his car...a tactic favoured by ISIS sympathisers.

Calling those people fascists and racists is accurate.

Rusty_Shackleton

Just rereading your post Fella, where is the hatred towards the elites (if thats whats you were getting at?)... Theres a difference between attributing blame due to someones actions (which Jones, in common with many Guardian writers) backs up with sources, and declaring a group cockroaches, or paraphrasing the literal nazis when talking about 'dealing with'a religious group.

Also, an important part of stoking hatred is the call to action. While Katie Hopkins calls for the use of gunboats to deal with asylum seekers, Jones in that article calls for action with this:

And as the racists and the fascists continue to march and unleash violent chaos, their enablers must be held accountable

... Held accountable. Hardly the same is it? Held accountable means through the law and through elections. Do you see the difference? Opposing extremism is not extremism.

Fella

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Just rereading your post Fella, where is the hatred towards the elites (if thats whats you were getting at?)... Theres a difference between attributing blame due to someones actions (which Jones, in common with many Guardian writers) backs up with sources, and declaring a group cockroaches, or paraphrasing the literal nazis when talking about 'dealing with'a religious group.

No, there is no difference whatsoever. You just think there is because you basically agree with Owen Jones.

When the daily mail write something you don't agree with you call it stoking up hatred.

When the guardian write something you do agree with you call it attributing blame.

Jones & The Guardian stoke up hatred all the time, and you see it on these very forums quite often, in the form of sneering so-called liberals pouring scorn & abuse on anybody who dares think or vote differently to themself. This very thread is a prime example.

antrobus

buglawton wrote: »

..Source:
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/exports, last updated Aug 2017.

Click the Max button. It; a more interesting graph.:)

buglawton wrote: »

The U.K. has had an issue with its trade balance for donkeys years. Nowt to do with Brexit.
But agreed, let's change the subject away from exports.

It's just that after about 1997 or so, it got a lot worse, and the government didn't give a !!!!. And neither did anybody else it seems.

I think that Harold Wilson blamed his loss of the 1970 election on a couple of jumbo jets making the figures look bad.

Rusty_Shackleton

Fella wrote: »

No, there is no difference whatsoever. You just think there is because you basically agree with Owen Jones.

When the daily mail write something you don't agree with you call it stoking up hatred.

When the guardian write something you do agree with you call it attributing blame.

Jones & The Guardian stoke up hatred all the time, and you see it on these very forums quite often, in the form of sneering so-called liberals pouring scorn & abuse on anybody who dares think or vote differently to themself. This very thread is a prime example.

This would be funny if it wasnt actually disturbing. If you'd like to provide other examples of 'hatred' from the Guardian or similar ill happily discuss those, but just keeping to this one Jones article: You are wrong, you are so wrong its almost unbelievable:

There is no hatred directed at the 'elites' in that article. Jones is saying that the events of Charlottesville are enabled by the likes of Trump, by legitimising extreme views, and afterwards, failing to condemn them in more than general 'violence is wrong' terms. Trump is struggling to condemn a group who the FBI have launched a civil rights and domestic terrorism investigation in to. Let that sink in for a minute. Do you think Trump would be struggling to do the right thing if the perpertrator was Muslim? No, he'd be calling for new laws to tackle such vile ideologues. What he is doing is categorically enabling and empowering white supremacists and fascists.

Calling for Trump to be held to account, through the law and elections, is not stoking hatred. Its calling for someone in a position of great power to be held responsible for their actions, and to change their behaviour before things get even darker. How the hell can you call that stoking hatred? If Jones was calling for Trump to be lynched, you'd have a point. But he hasnt... Nobody in the Guardian has called for that, of Trump or anyone else.

Meanwhile the right wing press don't let a day pass by without dehumanising some group or another, or talking up actual violence against people. That is literally a propaganda tool of choice used by every fascist dictator and despot going, to soften public opinion towards atrocities. You might think im exaggerating, but look at the events of the weekend. Swastikas and a terrorist attack against protestors... Not in some third world state, in the US!

There's also a vast difference between a journalist with a highly visible published platform, and a comment by any individuals on a forum - we were only discussing the former. The issue of 'liberals abusing anyone who thinks differently to themselves' in the cobtext of forums is a ridiculous thing to comment on when, on any forum, youll find abusive and at times reprehensible remarks from all sides in all debates, the actions of those individuals reflect as much on their 'side' as much as as individual terrorists reflect an entire religion. Its just an absurd accusation to make.

If you're going to reply, please actually debate the points rather than trying to deflect with accusations such as I only think this because he's on 'my side'. Its a rather weak argument.

posh*spice

GreatApe wrote: »

Migrants add to the supply of labor (if they work) but the very same migrants add to the demand of goods and services.

If a migrant came to the UK and pitched a tent in a park and ate nothing but bread and drank nothing but water and bought absolutely nothing no phone no TV no toilet paper no anything then its true they would be suppressing wages as all they would be doing is adding to supply of labor.

But that's not the reality for most migrants. For instance I know a recent ish migrant family been here about 5 years. The husband works in construction and the wife looks after the 4 year old and 1 year old baby. So while the husband is adding to the supply of labor the family is adding to the demand of goods and services. Everything from mobile phones to eating out to buying thing they and their kids need to healthcare and soon for education etc etc

As a guess I would say on average migrants more or less just about cover their own consumption. That is to say they produce 100 units of labor and consume 100 units of goods and services.

Actually that probably isn't true its possibly more like 100 units produced 95 units consumed as the public has a positive savings rate. Perhaps migrants are more like 100 units produced 90 consumed primarily due to the better demographics of migrants.


Overall I would be very pro for migrants in the 20s and very anti for migrants in their 50s+

Right. Cough.

And when your kids can't afford a house because the government is allowing a million people into the uk every 3 years - 4 cities the size of newcastle - and we are all living three generations in a house like we did in the 30s. Will you still be pro migration then?

When will you remoaners realise you are just robbing your children and yourselves of a future?

We don't have the space for a million people every three years. Our kids are being forced out of their own home.

Wake up. The liberal elites have brain washed you.

GreatApe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps their aim is to remit a high proportion of their earnings home to support their family or save for the future. Particularly if they come from a lower wage economy. £'s earnt will buy a lot more. (Or did I should say, as indications are that net migration are falling).

While here. They still buy from the Polski Shop that supplies all nature of imported home comforts. They share accommodation to keep costs down. Rarely eat or drink out.

They are employed to lay drives on a piece work basis. Receiving their pay in cash.

What a stupid post.

What do you think of me, I was born here and I have managed to save a chunk of capital. Does that make me the devil or somehow economically destructive because I have managed to make and save a lot? A lot of it has gone outside the country too for everything from oil to power my car to computer tech to do my work on to foreign holidays. Why is it OK for me to make money and spend some (or even most) of it on foreign goods and services but not OK for someone working a physical job in a warehouse sending it to his family on Poland?

Anyway some migrants are big savers some are big spenders. On the whole they probably produce just a little more than they consume primarily due to their demographics. That means they do not impact on the price of labor because although they add to the pool of labor they also add to the pool of demand. You could make the argument that they add to the bottom of the labor pool disproportionately and buy goods and services across the spectrum. That is to say they take the !!!! jobs but their demand creates jobs from teachers to doctors to solicitors to carpenters etc.

In effect the lower paid lower skipped migrants push the locals up the pay and skill scale. Without them our own kids would have to collect the rubbish drive the taxis clean the streets pick the strawberries and stack the shelves. That's not really the anti immigration heaven painted for us. Somehow the migrants if they were not here all our low paid people would become highly paid professionals..........

mrginge

Poor old rusty doesn't realise that he's just the same as that daily mail reader who also believes everything they read in their newspaper of choice.

Perhaps he's not as clever as he likes to make out?