|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 06 2017 03:02 Artisreal wrote:Man you're just speculating like a champ if you're trying to make that argument. No fucking body knows what might have happened in the 15 years we're having a currency union so I find it pretty baseless to assume and build arguments on such a shaky basis. Might be 5%, 10%, 40% more valuable but who knows? Germany may receive a benefit because of a Euro that is undervalued when compared to a Germany exclusive currency, but it also gives back through EU funds. Whether enough is another question and I'm not able to answer it out of the blue, but my guess is not enough. The UK shit on that possiblity by keeping the Pound. So please, clean up your own mess in that sense. Brexit might be good for both sides. I sincerely hope so. In my book strenghtening the EU and setting up a specific, measurable, achievable, realistic targets for economic and social equality and stability for the next 50 years is a must for the EU to grow closer and for a union that can last. Here in this thread nobody is denying faults in the system, being accountability or fairness or whathaveyou. Pulling out, much like during sex, won't yield the result you're hoping to acheive. + Show Spoiler +sorry that's supposed to be a joke
If the euro is undervalued in Germany then by definition it would be higher if they had their own currency, and everybody agrees it is undervalued. So it's hardly wild speculation. But I don't know why you're being defensive. Germany is happy with the euro and the UK is happy with the pound. I'm not accusing Germany of masterminding a plot. Everybody agreed to the euro, for whatever reason.
|
idk why you're reading a defensive stance in my post? But it doesn't really matter.
Mitterand once said that there won't be a united Germany unless it is integrated in a broader (i.e. European) Union and supposedly put the Kohl government under pressure to agree to an economic and currency union to receive France's permission for the reunion.
Though members of said government dispute such claims by the magazine "Der Spiegel".
There are plenty of arguments for a currency union and you know em.
|
the "undervalued" talking point is kind of moot. Obviously you can balkanize every currency union and the end result would be that export heavy regions would end up with a stronger currency than the other regions, but nobody argues that Texas and California are using an 'undervalued dollar'. The question is rather whether the members of a currency union want to accept the over- and undervalued members with all the political and economical consequences that it brings. It is just a proxy to discuss the issue of (monetary) autonomy, not some bad or good situation in and of itself.
As far as the Euro is concerned most members seem still to agree that they want to be a part of the currency union, including Greece.
|
On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 01:18 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote:On April 05 2017 23:48 bardtown wrote:On April 05 2017 23:47 Passion wrote:
Ah, people, people.
The UK has long been an obstruction to positive further development of the EU.
If they are happy to go, I am happy to see them leave, even though it's obviously a sad victory for populist leaders through the manipulation of the naive.
I think the shift in the balance of power might finally give the EU the chance to make the necessary next steps.
That said, I see no reason to not let them feel the price of their decision. I do recommend people here to look up some of the more sophisticated debates about the EU. The majority of people who voted for it are not supporters of populism but moderate Conservative/Labour voters. I can direct you to videos if you're interested. Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit. Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU.
You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%.
|
There is also the question of how much of the services rely on access to the EU. The specifics of the Brexit deal regarding financial services will propably be the most controversial. It´s clear that the EU doesn´t want the biggest Euro trading place outside of the EU and that alone will hurt.
|
On April 06 2017 05:24 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 01:18 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote:On April 05 2017 23:48 bardtown wrote:On April 05 2017 23:47 Passion wrote:
Ah, people, people.
The UK has long been an obstruction to positive further development of the EU.
If they are happy to go, I am happy to see them leave, even though it's obviously a sad victory for populist leaders through the manipulation of the naive.
I think the shift in the balance of power might finally give the EU the chance to make the necessary next steps.
That said, I see no reason to not let them feel the price of their decision. I do recommend people here to look up some of the more sophisticated debates about the EU. The majority of people who voted for it are not supporters of populism but moderate Conservative/Labour voters. I can direct you to videos if you're interested. Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit. Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU. You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%.
Tariffs are used to protect uncompetitive industries. The tariff on cars is 10%. The tariffs on agricultural produce, excluded from the figure you're using, are enormous.
The undervalued/overvalued 'talking point' is moot if you're a dyed in the wool federalist.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
By the way, whose (nominal non-PPP) GDP cock is bigger right now, France or UK? What about EU vs US?
|
UK and US. India is closer to the UK than France, should be bigger soon/possibly now.
|
On April 06 2017 05:48 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 05:24 warding wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 01:18 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote:On April 05 2017 23:48 bardtown wrote:On April 05 2017 23:47 Passion wrote:
Ah, people, people.
The UK has long been an obstruction to positive further development of the EU.
If they are happy to go, I am happy to see them leave, even though it's obviously a sad victory for populist leaders through the manipulation of the naive.
I think the shift in the balance of power might finally give the EU the chance to make the necessary next steps.
That said, I see no reason to not let them feel the price of their decision. I do recommend people here to look up some of the more sophisticated debates about the EU. The majority of people who voted for it are not supporters of populism but moderate Conservative/Labour voters. I can direct you to videos if you're interested. Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit. Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU. You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%. Tariffs are used to protect uncompetitive industries. The tariff on cars is 10%. The tariffs on agricultural produce, excluded from the figure you're using, are enormous.
Uncompetitive with whom? With the 3-times higher subventioned US agriculture? With autocratic and/or bad labor condition countries like india, or turkey or china? You are damn right I want my agriculture, my steel production and many others protected from them, the alternative is to be dependent on their good will or to drop my own quality of life to become competitive.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Agriculture is one of those low-margin yet high-societal-value industries that maybe we need to ensure that we subsidize the locals in. It's not particularly profitable but starvation would suck.
Economic realities destroying agriculture is... not a pretty sight.
|
Bardtown I'm with you on tariffs not being desirable. You're still wrong on the EU's being particularly high - they are not. And by the way, the reason automotive tariffs are high is not because European cars aren't competitive, it's to try to keep auto manufacturing jobs within the EU.
|
On April 06 2017 07:39 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 05:48 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 05:24 warding wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 01:18 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote:On April 05 2017 23:48 bardtown wrote:On April 05 2017 23:47 Passion wrote:
Ah, people, people.
The UK has long been an obstruction to positive further development of the EU.
If they are happy to go, I am happy to see them leave, even though it's obviously a sad victory for populist leaders through the manipulation of the naive.
I think the shift in the balance of power might finally give the EU the chance to make the necessary next steps.
That said, I see no reason to not let them feel the price of their decision. I do recommend people here to look up some of the more sophisticated debates about the EU. The majority of people who voted for it are not supporters of populism but moderate Conservative/Labour voters. I can direct you to videos if you're interested. Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit. Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU. You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%. Tariffs are used to protect uncompetitive industries. The tariff on cars is 10%. The tariffs on agricultural produce, excluded from the figure you're using, are enormous. Uncompetitive with whom? With the 3-times higher subventioned US agriculture? With autocratic and/or bad labor condition countries like india, or turkey or china? You are damn right I want my agriculture, my steel production and many others protected from them, the alternative is to be dependent on their good will or to drop my own quality of life to become competitive.
Yes, uncompetitive with China and India. If you want your economy to be efficient and to improve your quality of life then you don't force your consumers to pay more for their goods while channelling your own workforce into an industry in which they are not productive. It's fine in the short term, but the longer you take to find a world competitive niche of your own, the longer you pay the price of your protectionism.
Agriculture is exceptional. Every developed country subsidises its agriculture. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to impose tariffs as well, though. You can subsidise your own agriculture and people who care about locally sourced food will pay a premium for it while people who can't afford that luxury will benefit from no tariffs on food from elsewhere.
On April 06 2017 08:03 warding wrote:
Bardtown I'm with you on tariffs not being desirable. You're still wrong on the EU's being particularly high - they are not. And by the way, the reason automotive tariffs are high is not because European cars aren't competitive, it's to try to keep auto manufacturing jobs within the EU.
Everything is relative, of course. They're not particularly high by world standards but I expect the UK to reduce/abolish many of them. And that's the same thing. Keeping the jobs in the EU using tariffs is essentially subsiding an uncompetitive aspect of their manufacture.
|
A race to the bottom will benefit almost no one. Even here again you are wrong. If the UK goes out of the common market and tried to compete with third world countries on wages, it will be a terrible terrible disaster.
|
It´s realizing that in reality people aren´t completely flexible. People constantly loosing their jobs because of relativly short term market fluctuations and manipulations. What if Chinas gouverment decides to help their car manufactureres at least until their global competition is out of the market?
Yeah jobs in the EU are artificially being protected. If they weren´t they wouldn´t be there, especially because certain factors make jobs in the EU inherently "uncompetitive" like unions, worker protections, mandatory holidays, etc...
The UK certainly could be more competitive if they ditch regulations but consider what that actually means in real life.
|
On April 06 2017 08:35 Unentschieden wrote:
It´s realizing that in reality people aren´t completely flexible. People constantly loosing their jobs because of relativly short term market fluctuations and manipulations. What if Chinas gouverment decides to help their car manufactureres at least until their global competition is out of the market?
Yeah jobs in the EU are artificially being protected. If they weren´t they wouldn´t be there, especially because certain factors make jobs in the EU inherently "uncompetitive" like unions, worker protections, mandatory holidays, etc...
The UK certainly could be more competitive if they ditch regulations but consider what that actually means in real life.
Yeah, I recognise that. Every country (or bloc in the case of the EU) has to find its own balance. It's still true that the most efficient economy will be the one with the least protectionism, though. Also worth noting that workers rights and holidays can make you more competitive in high level fields where the competition is centred around attracting the best talent from a small pool.
|
Regarding that the situation for the UK seems to be "Brexodus" right now. While the citizen situation looks still uncertain the UK will struggle to attract foreign talent.
|
Let's hope they get it sorted as soon as possible, but there's no question that all the EU citizens here will have the right to remain. We'll get immigration figures soon enough though, and I very much doubt you'll see anything like 'Brexodus'.
|
Oh, you may think that EU citizens can stay indefinitely inside the UK. But there are already many cases of people who thought thet had settled permanently or semi-permanently in the UK, have been these for years, sometimes decades, with a non-UK EU passport, and they are told they should be prepared to leave. They never started the process of becoming a British citizens. On top of that, the normal road to citizenship is inaccessable to them, as they don't need to enter that track as they are EU citizens.
As for my British colleagues, few of them admit they want to become Dutch. But they are all worried about what Brexit means for their free traffic within Europe. While I was having a debate with Bardtown, May flip flopped once again and now claims there will be a free market, but for people only. But that is just what she thinks she wants right now.
But my British colleagues do seem to think the UK is fucked and their employment options lie within continental Europe. And they despite the UK having some really good universities (which will lose the funding they need to be as good as they are now, because the UK government has nothing to offer them).
So it seems to me that the Brexodus will be a real thing. And not only for EU headquarters of non-EU multinationals and the banking sector. But also a brain drain of young dynamic highly educated people.
|
Can't get immigrants in your companies if you tax their employment. increased competitiveness lmao.
|
On April 06 2017 08:14 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2017 07:39 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 05:48 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 05:24 warding wrote:On April 06 2017 01:57 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 01:44 Big J wrote:On April 06 2017 01:18 bardtown wrote:On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote:On April 05 2017 23:48 bardtown wrote:On April 05 2017 23:47 Passion wrote:
Ah, people, people.
The UK has long been an obstruction to positive further development of the EU.
If they are happy to go, I am happy to see them leave, even though it's obviously a sad victory for populist leaders through the manipulation of the naive.
I think the shift in the balance of power might finally give the EU the chance to make the necessary next steps.
That said, I see no reason to not let them feel the price of their decision. I do recommend people here to look up some of the more sophisticated debates about the EU. The majority of people who voted for it are not supporters of populism but moderate Conservative/Labour voters. I can direct you to videos if you're interested. Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. It would be in everyone's interest to maintain tariff free trade and the same tax levels over a trade war. That is off the table, the British strategy seems to be to hold the ground and suck mainland European businesses into their reach through extraordinary low levels of taxation. In that scenario it is in the EU's interest to make it impossible to use any of these advantages and suck out as much of the British economy as possible before the actual Brexit. Your views on who loses harder in a trade war are just the Trump views, which are strongly opposed by many economists. If you are the importer, imposing a tariff means you make your people pay the cost. The true question however is also, what is being exported and what other possibilities are there to redirect that trade. I believe the EU is in a vastly stronger position in that case, since I believe the European goods are much easier to redirect to the European market and other trade partners, than the UK's service based exports. Which is why those financial services seem to be playing very openly with moving away from the UK to keep their most valueable assets, their customer networks. Strange idea at the end. UK financial services are world competitive. EU goods are not, which is precisely why you impose such high tariffs on goods from outside the EU. You clearly have no idea what the actual tariff rates are. Look it up. The weighted mean should be around 2%. Tariffs are used to protect uncompetitive industries. The tariff on cars is 10%. The tariffs on agricultural produce, excluded from the figure you're using, are enormous. Uncompetitive with whom? With the 3-times higher subventioned US agriculture? With autocratic and/or bad labor condition countries like india, or turkey or china? You are damn right I want my agriculture, my steel production and many others protected from them, the alternative is to be dependent on their good will or to drop my own quality of life to become competitive. Yes, uncompetitive with China and India. If you want your economy to be efficient and to improve your quality of life then you don't force your consumers to pay more for their goods while channelling your own workforce into an industry in which they are not productive. It's fine in the short term, but the longer you take to find a world competitive niche of your own, the longer you pay the price of your protectionism. Agriculture is exceptional. Every developed country subsidises its agriculture. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to impose tariffs as well, though. You can subsidise your own agriculture and people who care about locally sourced food will pay a premium for it while people who can't afford that luxury will benefit from no tariffs on food from elsewhere.
Oh please, so subsiding is Ok but tariffs are bad? Socialism to keep local food somewhat competitive is good but keeping other goods cheap is bad? These conservative arguments for the free markets never cease to amaze. It's as if you guys didn't believe in any of the stuff you are saying yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
