Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Or in other words you have no idea why "the British ideas on the border undermine the 'the basic structures of the EU'?
    Now you are arguing in bad faith. What i posted is the underlying reason for the matter - that you refuse to accept it doesn't change it.
    Not to put too fine a point on it - bollocks.

    From the Future customs paper of August 2017

    "22.
    As we leave the EU we will also leave the EU Customs Union. To achieve our objectives on trading independently with both the EU and the rest of the world, we will need to establish a new customs arrangement with the EU outside of the EU Customs Union.
    23.
    In assessing the options for the UKs future outside the EU Customs Union, the Government will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the UK, and by three strategic objectives:

    ensuring UK-EU trade is as frictionless as possible;

    avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland; and

    establishing an independent international trade policy."


    The EU Commission is negotiating in bad faith and contrary to its own treaties!
    You might just as well as for unicorns. The problem - which ought to have been obvious from the start - is that those UK goals are mutually incompatible. You can have fully independent trading policy - but then you can not have 'as frictionless as possible' UK-EU border. Same goes for the N.I. issue. And you really need to prove that 'EU Commission' claim of yours. You do understand, hopefully, that this:
    1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.
    2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly.
    Does not equal to accepting all British proposals regardless of how they would undermine the EU. The EU will not sacrifice itself in order to fulfill the British fantasies. That does not mean that the EU would not be aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness just that it won't be doing so regardless of the costs.
    They won't be able to shortcut the queues!
    They might. After all they aren't the ones stuck in customs.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
      These technological solutions already exist:
      Excellent!

      Then Britain implements these ASAP. In the mean time however – the backstop.

      AND since this technology already exists and is unproblematic WHY would the UK resist a temporary backstop arrangement?

      Everyone agrees it is just supposed to be temporary. As and when the technological solution is up and running – and it is claimed to be uncontroversial by the UK side here – it will be removed. Both sides are in agreement over this.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
        Which agreement. No approval by Parliament, no agreement.
        And you wonder why the ROI and the EU insist on the backstop?
        These technological solutions already exist:
        "There have been significant developments around the world in creating
        bring together international standards and best practices and new technologies to create lowfriction
        borders that support that fast and secure movement of persons and goods.
        Standards and best practices such as domestic and cross-border coordinated border
        management as well as trusted trader and trusted traveller programs can significantly reduce
        compliance requirements and make borders almost friction free. Customs and other border
        control practices that keep the border open, such as release before clearance, deferred duty
        payments and clearance away from the border, also help keep the border free of traffic and
        speed up or even remove the need for processing.
        Technologies such as automatic number plate recognition, enhanced driver s licenses,
        barcode scanning and the use of smartphone apps can also have a significant impact by
        reducing paperwork and allowing pre- or on-arrival release, which can reduce or even
        eliminate the need to stop or undergo checks.
        Many of these measures have been introduced at borders across the world. At both the
        Norway-Sweden border and the Canada-US border, low friction borders have been created
        through a focus on sharing of both data and facilities, the creation of electronic environments
        for trade and travel and the use of modern technologies. Both Australia and New Zealand
        have also focused on utilising technology, in particular bio-metrics, to speed-up the
        movement of citizens between their respective countries.
        In developing a solution for the Irish border, there is an opportunity to develop a friction free
        border building on international standards and best practices, technology and insights from
        other jurisdictions."
        If that is so then why are the British so deathly afraid of the backstop? You do understand that if anything you posted was true and applicable to the Irish border then the backstop would never come into effect. So which is it? From the EU point of view the British unwillingness to accept the backstop is only indicative of the British belief that none of the proposed methods will work. The backstop is only there in case is no workable solution.

        FYI neither the Norway-Sweden (or the Norway-Finland) or the Canada-US are truly applicable. NAFTA (or whatever its successor is called) relates directly to the Canada-US trade. Norway on the other hand is in the Nordic Passport Union and also in the EU Single Market. In similar manner Australia-NZ is affected by CER or ANZCERTA. These things (which are functionally equivalent to things which were to agreed in the WA) really do matter.
        It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
          Now you are arguing in bad faith. What i posted is the underlying reason for the matter - that you refuse to accept it doesn't change it.
          You posted nothing of the sort. Just some handwaving.

          You might just as well as for unicorns. The problem - which ought to have been obvious from the start - is that those UK goals are mutually incompatible. You can have fully independent trading policy - but then you can not have 'as frictionless as possible' UK-EU border. Same goes for the N.I. issue.

          I think you have failed on English comprehension. "As frictionless as possible" does not mean completely frictionless.
          Possible: feasible, able to be done, practicable, viable, within the bounds/realms of possibility, attainable, achievable, realizable, within reach, workable, manageable; informalon, doable
          Which is exactly in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty whereas the EU negotiators and your own response is not
          "
          1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."



          They might. After all they aren't the ones stuck in customs.
          They'll be stuck in the queue to get to the customs!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
            Excellent!

            Then Britain implements these ASAP. In the mean time however – the backstop.

            AND since this technology already exists and is unproblematic WHY would the UK resist a temporary backstop arrangement?

            Everyone agrees it is just supposed to be temporary. As and when the technological solution is up and running – and it is claimed to be uncontroversial by the UK side here – it will be removed. Both sides are in agreement over this.

            The EU rejected these plans as 'magical thinking'. Quite contrary to the their own laws of good neighbourliness and close cooperation, I think you'll agree.

            Though lately Barnier has had a reconsideration

            "The EUs long-running duplicity over the Irish border has finally come to a head this week with the Commission wrapping itself up in knots trying to maintain its spurious position on the backstop after Commission Spokesman Margaritas Schinas caused a major fuss on Tuesday by saying that the EU would force Ireland to erect a hard border in the event of no deal. Not going to happen.

            Michel Barnier then let the cat out of the bag yesterday while trying to reverse the diplomatic damage, admitting that in the event of no deal we will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border, going on to say that my team have worked hard to study how controls can be made paperless or decentralised, which will be useful in all circumstances. Thus blowing apart the entire fiction that the backstop is necessary to avoid a hard border"

            https://order-order.com/2019/01/24/e...tarts-unravel/



            If the UK Parliament had been convinced the backstop arrangement would only be temporary they would not have voted against the Withdrawal Agreement by 432 votes to 202.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

              Which agreement. No approval by Parliament, no agreement.
              Ther UK negotiation team agreed a deal. If they didn't have the authority to negotiate it why were they there?



              Originally posted by Gooner View Post
              These technological solutions already exist:
              "There have been significant developments around the world in creating
              bring together international standards and best practices and new technologies to create lowfriction
              borders that support that fast and secure movement of persons and goods.
              Standards and best practices such as domestic and cross-border coordinated border
              management as well as trusted trader and trusted traveller programs can significantly reduce
              compliance requirements and make borders almost friction free. Customs and other border
              control practices that keep the border open, such as release before clearance, deferred duty
              payments and clearance away from the border, also help keep the border free of traffic and
              speed up or even remove the need for processing.
              Technologies such as automatic number plate recognition, enhanced driver s licenses,
              barcode scanning and the use of smartphone apps can also have a significant impact by
              reducing paperwork and allowing pre- or on-arrival release, which can reduce or even
              eliminate the need to stop or undergo checks.
              Many of these measures have been introduced at borders across the world. At both the
              Norway-Sweden border and the Canada-US border, low friction borders have been created
              through a focus on sharing of both data and facilities, the creation of electronic environments
              for trade and travel and the use of modern technologies. Both Australia and New Zealand
              have also focused on utilising technology, in particular bio-metrics, to speed-up the
              movement of citizens between their respective countries.
              In developing a solution for the Irish border, there is an opportunity to develop a friction free
              border building on international standards and best practices, technology and insights from
              other jurisdictions."
              I've crossed the Ireland/Uk land border many times. You are only aware that you have crossed when you see the old fashioned speed limit signs in miles.
              I've crossed the USA/Canada border at Seattle and at New York. It's far from frictionless.
              "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
              validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
              "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                You posted nothing of the sort. Just some handwaving.
                Then you have not understood anything. Try searching for 'Barnier's stair slide'.
                I think you have failed on English comprehension. "As frictionless as possible" does not mean completely frictionless.
                I understood the expression just fine but i have my doubts if you understood what i posted.
                Which is exactly in the spirit of the Lisbon Treaty whereas the EU negotiators and your own response is not

                "1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation."
                Actually the the EU negotiators and my own response are exactly following that guideline. You seem to be mistaking those terms as a mandatory requirement to accept whatever the UK throws at the EU. That is not the what the excerpt means. It certainly does not mean that the EU would need to compromise itself (via compromising its SM or CU) to appease a leaving state. The EU aims for those things but it won't destroy itself to achieve them.
                They'll be stuck in the queue to get to the customs!
                Are you aware what TIR is and how it works?
                It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gooner View Post


                  The EU rejected these plans as 'magical thinking'. Quite contrary to the their own laws of good neighbourliness and close cooperation, I think you'll agree.

                  Though lately Barnier has had a reconsideration

                  "The EUs long-running duplicity over the Irish border has finally come to a head this week with the Commission wrapping itself up in knots trying to maintain its spurious position on the backstop after Commission Spokesman Margaritas Schinas caused a major fuss on Tuesday by saying that the EU would force Ireland to erect a hard border in the event of no deal. Not going to happen.

                  Michel Barnier then let the cat out of the bag yesterday while trying to reverse the diplomatic damage, admitting that in the event of no deal we will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border, going on to say that my team have worked hard to study how controls can be made paperless or decentralised, which will be useful in all circumstances. Thus blowing apart the entire fiction that the backstop is necessary to avoid a hard border"

                  https://order-order.com/2019/01/24/e...tarts-unravel/



                  If the UK Parliament had been convinced the backstop arrangement would only be temporary they would not have voted against the Withdrawal Agreement by 432 votes to 202.
                  But all of that is beside the point.

                  If the UK has a working technical solution that can supplant either a hard border or a backstop agreement of the kind already negotiated, then there literally is no risk that UK will get trapped in a customs union for lack of options, IF it pro tem accept the backstop agreement it has already negotiated. It's a backstop, it's not intended to be permanent. The UK and EU negotiators have already agreed on that.

                  The problem is just that the EU doesn't quite see the proposed UK technological solutions as the working solutions and guarantee the UK now claims they form. That however shouldn't be a problem for the UK, as long as the UK has confidence in the solution it has just proposed.

                  By now the exposure to how Brexiters argue really has left me with the impression that, yes, you are in fact totally sincere and argue in good faith when you present solutions like this.

                  But you're overselling things wildly, and when push comes to show you don't actually come across have confidence in your own solutions. The problem is that you have for a long time, and are still, first convincing yourself of the correctness of what you're saying, only then presenting it to the increasingly incredulous world outside the UK.

                  IF the UK proposed technological solutions do work, then a backstop will only be temporary. The EU is unconvinced about this, and saying so. So what about the UK? Do you actually believe the proposed solutions are workable, in which case the backstop agreement is unproblematic (since it's not a trap)? Or do you think it is a trap because you are unconvinced the proposed solutions will work?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post


                    The problem is just that the EU doesn't quite see the proposed UK technological solutions as the working solutions and guarantee the UK now claims they form. That however shouldn't be a problem for the UK, as long as the UK has confidence in the solution it has just proposed.
                    Well to have a 'smart' border you really need both sides be engaged on it. The previous Irish Prime Minister was co-operating with the UK in looking for technological solutions but this has ceased under Leo Varadkar.
                    I guess the UK will go it alone after 29th March though …


                    And you have misunderstood. The proposed technological solutions, with extracts above, and including the answer
                    "The second answer to the research question is:
                    It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the
                    requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures,
                    with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a
                    combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art
                    technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution."

                    is not a UK proposal but an EU one.

                    "This study, commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for
                    Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO Committee,
                    provides background on cross-border movement and trade between Northern
                    Ireland and Ireland and identifies international standards and best practices and
                    provide insights into creating a smooth border experience. The technical solution
                    provided is based on innovative approaches with a focus on cooperation, best
                    practices and technology that is independent of any political agreements on the
                    d offers a template for future UK-EU border relationships.


                    www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/.../IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                      Well to have a 'smart' border you really need both sides be engaged on it. The previous Irish Prime Minister was co-operating with the UK in looking for technological solutions but this has ceased under Leo Varadkar.
                      I guess the UK will go it alone after 29th March though …


                      And you have misunderstood. The proposed technological solutions, with extracts above, and including the answer
                      "The second answer to the research question is:
                      It is possible to implement a Customs and Border solution that meets the
                      requirements of the EU Customs legislation (Union Customs Code) and procedures,
                      with expected post-Brexit volumes of cross-border people and goods, if using a
                      combination of international standards, global best practices and state-of-the-art
                      technology upgraded to a Smart Border 2.0 or similar solution."

                      is not a UK proposal but an EU one.

                      "This study, commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for
                      Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO Committee,
                      provides background on cross-border movement and trade between Northern
                      Ireland and Ireland and identifies international standards and best practices and
                      provide insights into creating a smooth border experience. The technical solution
                      provided is based on innovative approaches with a focus on cooperation, best
                      practices and technology that is independent of any political agreements on the
                      d offers a template for future UK-EU border relationships.


                      www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/.../IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf
                      So what's the problem with the Backstop?
                      "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                      validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                      "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                      Comment


                      • I'd just like to add that Gooner's posts on this topic are well informed and I've learned things from reading them so thanks for adding some substance to the discussion.
                        "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                        validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                        "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                          Then you should have read the versions for advanced students too since they make it quite clear why the result described is only a short term if it undermines the production of the UK. And would in long term be detrimental to the economy of the UK. Cheap imports would enable you to buy more, sure - but the other side of the coin is that less domestic production means lay-offs, unemployment, and similar which will result in increasing public spending, which results in increasing taxes (or alternatively in increasing public debt) which in turn will result in reduction of your purchasing power. Additionally the UK companies could produce things more cheaply - mainly by means of paying less. Which again will result in decreasing purchasing power (and quite a few other things). Overall result would regardless be rapidly increasing income inequality.
                          Got it all wrong mate. All protectionism does is protects jobs at outfits and in industries that, if they had to compete on a level playing field, they'd fold in the face of superior competition. For our British friends the ultimate proof of that was British Leyland: a low volume, low quality, high cost producer of passenger cars and trucks. For better than two decades Westminster sought to protect British Leyland, by both closing off the UK market to imports, and by assigning greater shares of raw materials and capital in order to boost exports. The moment superior competition showed up on the world market -- first from Germany, Italy, and Sweden, and later from Japan -- BL simply crumbled. BL was behind the curve technologically, their workforce was wholly unprepared to meet the global market's demand for higher quality and better value. Westminster fought throughout the 1960s and '70s to keep BL afloat, but to no avail: their offerings were both too expensive and of inferior quality. Engaging public policy and public treasuries to prop up outfits like BL only served to poison industrial relations, and render completely unfit for any type of employment millions of workers in perpetuity, as well as bankrupting the government. I'll let the Britons here regale you with tales of strikes at Speke and the Winter of Discontent -- all predicated on a foundation of protectionism. For a very direct treatment of the issue, I recommend former BSA/Triumph boss Ed Turner's observations from his visit to Japan, circa 1960.

                          Here's a more nuanced view of the topic from a US point of view, but it applies elsewhere:

                          . . . . The Truths of Free Trade

                          Free trade increases prosperity for Americans—and the citizens of all participating nations—by allowing consumers to buy more, better-quality products at lower costs. It drives economic growth, enhanced efficiency, increased innovation, and the greater fairness that accompanies a rules-based system. These benefits increase as overall trade—exports and imports—increases.
                          • Free trade increases access to higher-quality, lower-priced goods. Cheaper imports, particularly from countries such as China and Mexico, have eased inflationary pressure in the United States. Prices are held down by more than 2 percent for every 1 percent share in the market by imports from low-income countries like China, which leaves more income for Americans to spend on other products.
                          • Free trade means more growth. At least half of US imports are not consumer goods; they are inputs for US-based producers, according to economists from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Freeing trade reduces imported-input costs, thus reducing businesses’ production costs and promoting economic growth.
                          • Free trade improves efficiency and innovation. Over time, free trade works with other market processes to shift workers and resources to more productive uses, allowing more efficient industries to thrive. The results are higher wages, investment in such things as infrastructure, and a more dynamic economy that continues to create new jobs and opportunities.
                          • Free trade drives competitiveness. Free trade does require American businesses and workers to adapt to the shifting demands of the worldwide marketplace. But these adjustments are critical to remaining competitive, and competition is what fuels long-term growth.
                          • Free trade promotes fairness. When everyone follows the same rules-based system, there is less opportunity for cronyism, or the ability of participating nations to skew trade advantages toward favored parties. In the absence of such a system, bigger and better-connected industries can more easily acquire unfair advantages, such as tax and regulatory loopholes, which shield them from competition.
                          Myth vs. Reality

                          1. Myth: More exports mean more wealth.

                          Reality: It is the total level of trade—exports and imports—that most accurately reflects American prosperity. Prosperity is defined by the breadth and variety of what Americans are able to consume. More exports increase wealth only because they allow Americans to buy more imports and give non-Americans greater incentives to invest in America, helping the US economy grow. Restricting imports leaves Americans worse off.
                          • Poorer Americans suffer more from tariffs than higher-income people. Not only do they spend more of their income on consumption goods, many of the goods they consume are subject to higher tariffs than more expensive goods of the same type.
                          • For example, imported cheap sneakers can face a tariff as high as 60 percent, while men’s leather dress shoes are subject to an 8.5 percent tariff. Similarly, plain drinking glasses face a tariff of nearly 30 percent, while expensive crystal glasses are taxed at 3 percent.

                          2. Myth: Free trade means jobs go overseas.

                          Reality: Free trade does not create more jobs, but neither does protectionism. Free trade may reduce jobs in inefficient industries, but it frees up resources to create jobs in efficient industries, boosting overall wages and improving living standards. Protectionism, in contrast, attempts to protect jobs that the market will not sustain, at the expense of more innovative industries.
                          • Much of the change in the labor force is not the result of free trade but of innovation. New technology, such as apps on mobile devices, has displaced a staggering variety of products, including radios, cameras, alarm clocks, calculators, compact discs, DVDs, carpenters’ levels, tape measures, tape recorders, blood-pressure monitors, cardiographs, flashlights, and file cabinets.
                          • Using protectionist policies to “save” a job comes at enormous cost, as opportunities shrink and input costs swell for industries downstream. . . . .
                          "The Benefits of Free Trade: Addressing Key Myths," by Donald J Boudreaux and Nita Ghei, The Mercatus Center, George Mason University, 23 May 2018
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                            All protectionism does is protects jobs at outfits and in industries that, if they had to compete on a level playing field, they'd fold in the face of superior competition.
                            I think you misunderstood me slightly. I agree with what you are stating on general level. However the playing field is not level and that ought to be realized as well. I'm not saying that protectionism is the winner just that i find it difficult to see in a long run a way for the UK forward if they outsource their industry and agriculture. Layland is an example where everything went wrong - however what the UK ought to try to get is keep production in their own island regardless of who is the owner of that as long as jobs stay. Point was not to make sure that specific UK brands would survive but that industry and jobs in the UK would not be lost.
                            Here's a more nuanced view of the topic from a US point of view, but it applies elsewhere:
                            It is rather strange to assume that if all the jobs are outsourced abroad that new jobs would just manifest. All those ideas on based on the unsustainable theory of neverending growth that fair share of the economic theories for some reasons still rely upon. Reality is that outsourcing by such a manner in a system where there is no level playing field (worker standards, regulations, salaries, etc.) at global level will lead to reduction of jobs even if it would seem to be profitable on the short term. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that full protectionist walls ought to be erected but there is need for having those tariffs in order to create even a rough equivalence of a level playing field between imports and domestic production.

                            They are not needed in an ideal situation where fully level playing field would exist. But that is not reality. That is utopia.
                            It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                            Comment


                            • ^ 1) There are always jobs that can't be outsourced -- at all levels of the income spectrum;

                              2) I've come to understand that British young people are rather like American young people -- in that they're lazy and entitled, and tend to choose majors like film and communications over engineering by a good clip. The future is in technology. That's an immutable fact. Our universities market crap products, aka liberal arts: yet another immutable fact. Back in 2011, when the recession was still being felt, the trucking industry was slowed by a shortage of applicants. Same problem exists in agriculture: Americans simply refuse to do that kind of work.

                              You'd think that if one graduates from college in the midst of a recession, that one would be well-motivated to take 'most any paying gig available, if for no other reason than to pay down that student debt. So why were such jobs going unfilled during the recession?

                              You'll note that my sources are National Public Radio and The Washington Post: not exactly Fox & Friends. Even our left-of-center outlets can't deny it: native-born Americans think themselves too good for certain types of work. I have every confidence that the same applies in the UK, as well.

                              There's your "level playing field." I've worked in factories, and I can tell you from personal experience, that no one who has any semblance of a choice wants to work in a factory -- so that anxiety over the loss of manufacturing jobs is simply a canard. Heavy industry left the building four decades ago, and it ain't never coming back. What you're proposing is the abolition of the automobile in favor of the horse, so we can save jobs in the leather goods and saddlery industry. I can't see it getting more idiotic than that.

                              By the way, you do realize that you're making a Trumpian argument, don't you?
                              Last edited by slick_miester; 29 Jan 19, 13:57.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                                1) There are always jobs that can't be outsourced -- at all levels of the income spectrum;
                                Certainly - but the fully free trade taking place on uneven playing field would lead to outsourcing of those jobs which can be outsourced. It wouldn't affect everything and every job but it would have an impact.
                                2) I've come to understand that British young people are rather like American young people -- in that they're lazy and entitled, and tend to choose majors like film and communications over engineering by a good clip. The future is in technology. That's an immutable fact. Our universities market crap products, aka liberal arts: yet another immutable fact.
                                Perhaps but much of that is already taking place abroad as well. Besides without safeguards it wouldn't even matter if it happened domestically since the production resulting from the new technology would end up being produced abroad regardless.
                                You'd think that if one graduates from college in the midst of a recession, that one would be well-motivated to take 'most any paying gig available, if for no other reason than to pay down that student debt. So why were such jobs going unfilled during the recession?
                                There are plenty of reasons - not every is qualified to do everything.
                                There's your "level playing field." I've worked in factories, and I can tell you from personal experience, that no one who has any semblance of a choice wants to work in a factory -- so that anxiety over the loss of manufacturing jobs is simply a canard. Heavy industry left the building four decades ago, and it ain't never coming back. What you're proposing is the abolition of the automobile in favor of the horse, so we can save jobs in the leather goods and saddlery industry. I can't see it getting more idiotic than that.
                                I have worked in factories too, and i know quite well what it is. I'm not quite as extreme as what you try to paint but only underlining the issue that should trade be fully freed due to the uneven playing field the jobs would go abroad, and would result domestically in raising costs for covering the employment. Even if it is just a factory worker it would be preferable (for the government) to have those instead of unemployment. Which means benefits (keep in mind that not every country is as draconian towards the unemployed as what the USA is), which means increased public spending, which means increased taxes or increased debt. That is nothing but a downward spiral.
                                By the way, you do realize that you're making a Trumpian argument, don't you?
                                If you mean by retaining tariffs then most people discussing trade are making such arguments. The sad reality is that true free trade which would be mutually beneficial is rather tricky because the playing field is not even.
                                It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X