Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Moby

wunferall wrote: »

:rotfl:

He's been out of touch for years!
There's lots to suggest this but as one example he lost a no-confidence vote in 2016 by 172 to 40.
That's a lot of MP's who knew even then how out of touch Corbyn was.

As for your "not accepting those types" well, you have two choices really.
Carry on whingeing or put your money where your mouth is, leaving for somewhere different.
If you're such a fan of socialism try a visit to Venezuela.
Socialism has worked so well for them.

That tired old Venezuela trope again. Don't you get bored with it. Corbyn did win two leadership elections as well and the membership counts more than the MP's. The point I'm making is we have a tory leader pushing through brexit who is a remainer and a Labour leader who is a brexiteer leading a party which is strongly remain.
Aren't you a tad concerned that May is doing a deal which keeps us in a Customs Union with the EU......incidentally something Corbyn knew was inevitable last February....so he isn't that out of touch is he!;)

wunferall

Moby wrote: »

That tired old Venezuela trope again. Don't you get bored with it. Corbyn did win two leadership elections as well and the membership counts more than the MP's. The point I'm making is we have a tory leader pushing through brexit who is a remainer and a Labour leader who is a brexiteer leading a party which is strongly remain.
Aren't you a tad concerned that May is doing a deal which keeps us in a Customs Union with the EU......incidentally something Corbyn knew was inevitable last February....so he isn't that out of touch is he!

Unlike so many here TBH I'm not concerned about anything to do with a final Brexit deal until it is just that; final.
There have already been far too many lies and half-truths to believe anything reported by media as being supposedly factual when it is not.


To suggest that Corbyn knew something last February when nothing has yet been signed is frankly ridiculous.
He "knew" nothing.
Now if you had said "suspected" you might have been on a steadier footing but again I must point out that no deal has been agreed.
When it has and the contents are known you might like to try again.

I note the typical socialists response of denial re: Venezuela.
It won't wash.
It is real.

Thrugelmir

wunferall wrote: »

A negative balance of trade is widely accepted as being okay, because it just means that the country could manage very well if FDI makes up for it (as here in the UK for years) or money is borrowed to make up the difference.
So that's at least partly why balance of trade isn't a good indicator.

Money isn't just borrowed. Assets are sold. Only so much family silver in the locker. Assets generate "profit". Profit creates wealth.

High UK debt levels remain an issue for future growth.

Arklight

wunferall wrote: »

Unlike so many here TBH I'm not concerned about anything to do with a final Brexit deal until it is just that; final.
There have already been far too many lies and half-truths to believe anything reported by media as being supposedly factual when it is not.


To suggest that Corbyn knew something last February when nothing has yet been signed is frankly ridiculous.
He "knew" nothing.
Now if you had said "suspected" you might have been on a steadier footing but again I must point out that no deal has been agreed.
When it has and the contents are known you might like to try again.

I note the typical socialists response of denial re: Venezuela.
It won't wash.
It is real.

Or we could look at those well known socialist hell holes, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland,or actually pretty much anywhere in Europe that offers social democracy. Frankly anything is better than the brainless politics of "me first" despair that your "side" (and I use that term loosely considering the Right is about as unified as a sack full of starving scorpions) offers.

wunferall

Arklight wrote: »

Or we could look at those well known socialist hell holes, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland,or actually pretty much anywhere in Europe that offers social democracy. Frankly anything is better than the brainless politics of "me first" despair that your "side" (and I use that term loosely considering the Right is about as unified as a sack full of starving scorpions) offers.

"Hook, line and sinker" springs immediately to mind.

..... it is common for those on the right to counter with the example of Venezuela as the nightmare of socialism in reality. A common response from the left is that socialism (or democratic socialism) works just fine in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#394f807274ad


Your attempt at deflection ain't worked.
Just like socialism really.

Arklight

wunferall wrote: »

"Hook, line and sinker" springs immediately to mind.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#394f807274ad


Your attempt at deflection ain't worked.
Just like socialism really.

I know that you probably think that is hasn't. Now if you pay attention to someone who went to university (several times) you might learn why your rebuttal is so flimsy.

Firstly, providing a random link you collected from your travels on Guido Fawkes, Breitbart and the comments section of the Daily Mail without context, doesn't provide much insight into anything other than that your mouse has a functioning right click button.

Secondly, your source, Jeffrey Dorfman, is a right wing economist who works as a professor for the University of Georgia. Professor Dorfman is commenting on "socialism" through the lens of a political establishment (of which he is very much a part) that considers providing soup kitchens to stop people starving on the streets a dangerous infringement on his personal liberty, and probably a prelude to Stalinism in the Southern States.

The mainstay of Prof D's argument is this:

Socialism can take the form of government controlling or interfering with free markets, nationalizing industries, and subsidizing favored ones (green energy, anyone?). The Nordic countries don’t actually do much of those things.

Which is rendered completely irrelevant by this:



Scandanavian countries tax people with money and redistribute it to people who haven't got any. The tax levels in Sweden would be well into the territory of a communist dystopia for the American right.

They would have quite a lot from Jeffrey were he to earn a US economics professor's salary in Denmark, rather than the deep South. Of course he wouldn't get to step over the bodies of the homeless on the way to work, but he probably likes that.

You'll be pleased to know that Labour's economic policy follows the Scandinavian model. Supermarkets are not about to be nationalised. Of course Jeffrey won't want to move over here, but I think we can manage without him.

wunferall

Arklight wrote: »

I know that you probably think that is hasn't. Now if you pay attention to someone who went to university (several times) you might learn why your rebuttal is so flimsy.
....

Oh here we go.
First I have attended university, more than once and I'm not going to bore you with my (considerable) qualifications much though you would like me to.

Second, just read my link.
It rubbishes what you post above and explains why.
If you had read my link first you would have known (and possibly even understood) that.
Although I do recognise that from your response above that is unlikely.
Oh and BTW, the author is (as you confess) a professor of economics at Georgia University so he isn't exactly without knowledge on the subject.
Unlike those that have stoop so low as to use such personal insult of suggesting the use of Guido Fawkes etc. to find sources.


ETA
If you could be bothered to look for yourself ........... aw look, here are the first few links from those better-qualified than you who agree that your beloved socialism is not at the heart of Nordic countries.
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/402682-nordic-nations-are-not-socialist-theyre-free-trade-lovers

https://www.austriancenter.com/shattering-myth-nordic-socialism/

https://iea.org.uk/blog/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism

wunferall

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Money isn't just borrowed. Assets are sold. Only so much family silver in the locker. Assets generate "profit". Profit creates wealth.

High UK debt levels remain an issue for future growth.

You're only partially correct.
Of course the UK's debt levels remain an issue - something that many of us agree should be better taken into account when Labour discuss their proposals for the future prior to every election.

But it's not all about selling the family silver inasmuch as the UK remains one of the most inventive, innovative and creative places on earth.
Such inventiveness begets and grows new business.
A remainers pet hate, James Dyson, is one such great example with his company increasing Asian sales by 41% last year alone.
Yes he has factories globally in order to effectively penetrate such markets - but his is an innovative and successful British company.
Another example (though there are many) lays with the UK being a world leader in movie special effects.

Think of it as being a little like selling your old sofa to buy a new one.
(Disclaimer: I did say "a little". )

ruperts

wunferall wrote: »

What a ridiculous assertion.
Just because "ordinary people" might have little understanding of the correlation between GDP and "food on the table" doesn't mean it does not exist, it only displays your lack of understanding.

As suggested above, if there really is no correlation between GDP growth and food on the table you might like to explain that to millions of starving Venezuelans who have (perhaps unwittingly) seen their GDP decline by 45% in five years.
https://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/05/14/18/how-once-mighty-venezuelan-economy-collapsed

A country can (and ours does) achieve GDP growth simply by adding to the population, which doesn’t necessarily have any positive impact on the ability of the average individual to put food on the table.

Even if you refine it to say, real gdp per capita, it still doesn’t work. We could probably increase real gdp per capita by abolishing workers rights and the minimum wage, allowing businesses free reign to exploit whoever and however they want and in doing so make a lot more money, but then the median individual would likely be considerably worse off.

Thinking GDP is quite a useless measure is not a new or unique opinion, David Cameron thought the same and that’s why the ONS now attempt to measure wellbeing in different ways.

Moby

Hey guys we've been saved. Everything is going to be alright!:-

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1043247/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Theresa-May-Commonwealth-trade-deal-Sierra-Leone-latest