We give £350 million per week to the EU, lets fund our colons instead
Advertisement
by The Huskar Social Union » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:20 am
by Anywhere Else But Here » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:31 am
by Souseiseki » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:26 am
by Tananat » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:31 am
Vassenor wrote:Looks like Uber's lost its Private Hire license in London as of the end of the month.
Not entirely sure what to make of that really.
by Dooom35796821595 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:03 am
by Dooom35796821595 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:08 am
Souseiseki wrote:Trumptonium wrote:
Such as?
ripping yourself away from the largest trade bloc in the world while creating a huge amount of uncertainty about what your plan even is and thinking aloud about whether you really need to pay the money you said you would for the current budgetary period is not good for your credit rating
by Chestaan » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:34 am
by The Grim Reaper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:57 am
Chestaan wrote:In terms of economics they got things right in lowering trade barriers and cross-country employment barriers, but in everything else the project has been an economic nightmare. Any second year undergrad economic student should be able to explain why CAP was a horrible idea before it even happened, and that same student should be able explain why the common currency failed so spectacularly. This isn't really that complicated, yet the EU ignored all of this and forged ahead with policies that were disastrous for Europe and the entire world.
by Hydesland » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:59 am
Chestaan wrote:Any second year undergrad economic student should be able to explain why CAP was a horrible idea before it even happened,
by HMS Queen Elizabeth » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:41 pm
The Grim Reaper wrote:Chestaan wrote:In terms of economics they got things right in lowering trade barriers and cross-country employment barriers, but in everything else the project has been an economic nightmare. Any second year undergrad economic student should be able to explain why CAP was a horrible idea before it even happened, and that same student should be able explain why the common currency failed so spectacularly. This isn't really that complicated, yet the EU ignored all of this and forged ahead with policies that were disastrous for Europe and the entire world.
Yes, because those second year undergrad economic students have the benefit of quoting from history textbooks analyzing the failings of CAP and the common currency in detail.
by HMS Queen Elizabeth » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:46 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:The rationality of trade with Australia and other far-flung regions is relatively low in a globalised, market world. If we reject the rationale of the globalised market world, then that is also an argument outside of the standard EU debate, since the EU is a global market organisation at its core - there's a reason why Britain's trade as proportion GDP hovered around 40% from 1960-73 and then jumped up to 55% in 1973 and generally hovered between 50-55% between then and now.
by Trumptonium » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:39 am
Souseiseki wrote:Trumptonium wrote:
Such as?
ripping yourself away from the largest trade bloc in the world while creating a huge amount of uncertainty about what your plan even is and thinking aloud about whether you really need to pay the money you said you would for the current budgetary period is not good for your credit rating
by Tananat » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:33 am
Trumptonium wrote:Souseiseki wrote:
ripping yourself away from the largest trade bloc in the world while creating a huge amount of uncertainty about what your plan even is and thinking aloud about whether you really need to pay the money you said you would for the current budgetary period is not good for your credit rating
that's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.
by Trumptonium » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:53 am
by Chestaan » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:47 am
Hydesland wrote:Chestaan wrote:Any second year undergrad economic student should be able to explain why CAP was a horrible idea before it even happened,
Actually, I distinctly remember learning in my second year only that it was very bad at first, but then after some reforms and changes became rather effective.
The Grim Reaper wrote:Chestaan wrote:In terms of economics they got things right in lowering trade barriers and cross-country employment barriers, but in everything else the project has been an economic nightmare. Any second year undergrad economic student should be able to explain why CAP was a horrible idea before it even happened, and that same student should be able explain why the common currency failed so spectacularly. This isn't really that complicated, yet the EU ignored all of this and forged ahead with policies that were disastrous for Europe and the entire world.
Yes, because those second year undergrad economic students have the benefit of quoting from history textbooks analyzing the failings of CAP and the common currency in detail.
For virtually anyone in the modern world, the most visible symbol of the EU is the free movement of people. That's why anti-Euro parties have shifted to anti-immigrant rhetoric - it's a more powerful playing field. With the shift, liberals and lefties who were inclined to distrust the EU on trade grounds (Corbyn, for instance) found themselves having to pivot to a position of at least lukewarm support given that they were implicitly talking about a different symbol - from the common currency to the ethno-religious secular movement of people. "in everything else the project has been an economic nightmare," maybe, but as for the remainder, it's fairly popular with a lot of Europeans, and it's not a remainder you can dismiss out of hand.
by HMS Queen Elizabeth » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:21 am
Souseiseki wrote:though it is pretty funny to learn that everyone that was convinced by the "you'll be £x worse off if we leave!" arguments re: independence does not deserve to live in scotland.
by HMS Queen Elizabeth » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:35 am
Chestaan wrote:You don't need the benefit of hindsight to be able to predict that price floors on such a large scale as the CAP would be an economic nightmare. In fact forget second year undergrads, this is something I teach to first years. Its a straight-forward diagram that clearly shows a massive surplus of production. Same with the euro, but slightly more complicated. Look up Optimal Currency Area and you will see what I mean. Prior to the introduction of the euro people predicted that it would cause huge problems, which it did. Why did the EU insist on defying logic and implementing these policies? Maybe, like the British people, they too are tired of experts?
by Hydesland » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:23 am
HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:I seem to recall a lot of "experts" at the time supported the EMU with twinky econometric models that included benefits of reducing trade frictions but excluded the costs of suboptimal monetary policy. It was "ideological extremists" like Milton Friedman who predicted the obvious disaster and my recollection is that they were in the hard minority. When Britain was considering joining you certainly didn't get this overwhelming drumbeat of "expert" pronouncements that EMU would be a disaster in the way we did that Brexit will be a disaster.
by Chestaan » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:02 pm
Hydesland wrote:HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:I seem to recall a lot of "experts" at the time supported the EMU with twinky econometric models that included benefits of reducing trade frictions but excluded the costs of suboptimal monetary policy. It was "ideological extremists" like Milton Friedman who predicted the obvious disaster and my recollection is that they were in the hard minority. When Britain was considering joining you certainly didn't get this overwhelming drumbeat of "expert" pronouncements that EMU would be a disaster in the way we did that Brexit will be a disaster.
Actually the expert opinion was a little more nuanced.
by HMS Queen Elizabeth » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:21 pm
Hydesland wrote:HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:I seem to recall a lot of "experts" at the time supported the EMU with twinky econometric models that included benefits of reducing trade frictions but excluded the costs of suboptimal monetary policy. It was "ideological extremists" like Milton Friedman who predicted the obvious disaster and my recollection is that they were in the hard minority. When Britain was considering joining you certainly didn't get this overwhelming drumbeat of "expert" pronouncements that EMU would be a disaster in the way we did that Brexit will be a disaster.
Actually the expert opinion was a little more nuanced.
by Hydesland » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:09 am
by Bakery Hill » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:49 am
Hydesland wrote:HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:I was there and the "expert" opinion as reported by the BBC was "bumblefuck hicks don't want to get with the future because they think Macaulay is still viceroy of India".
Then BBC was wrong - from The Economist:Macroeconomists were in favour by 67% to 33%, and specialists in international economics (including trade, exchange rates and foreign direct investment) by 64% to 36%. The one striking exception was monetary economists: by a majority of two to one, they said that joining EMU would be a bad thing for Britain.
So a majority of monetary economists, and a very signifiant/large minority of macro-economists said joining the Euro would be a bad idea. That's nothing like today, the numbers are more likely to be 90% - 10% against Brexit, and I'm aware of no subfield or speciality of econ where the numbers are flipped on Brexit like with monetary econ and the Euro.
by HMS Queen Elizabeth » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:26 am
Hydesland wrote:HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:I was there and the "expert" opinion as reported by the BBC was "bumblefuck hicks don't want to get with the future because they think Macaulay is still viceroy of India".
Then BBC was wrong - from The Economist:Macroeconomists were in favour by 67% to 33%, and specialists in international economics (including trade, exchange rates and foreign direct investment) by 64% to 36%. The one striking exception was monetary economists: by a majority of two to one, they said that joining EMU would be a bad thing for Britain.
So a majority of monetary economists, and a very signifiant/large minority of macro-economists said joining the Euro would be a bad idea. That's nothing like today, the numbers are more likely to be 90% - 10% against Brexit, and I'm aware of no subfield or speciality of econ where the numbers are flipped on Brexit like with monetary econ and the Euro.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, All Wild Things, American Legionaries, Angevin-Romanov Crimea, Bienenhalde, Camillay, Celritannia, Foxyshire, Giovanniland, Ineva, Neu California, Nu Elysium, San Lumen, The Jamesian Republic, The United Colonies of Earth
Advertisement