Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

[southeastone]

. So blame Thatcher.

.

More houses built under Thatcher in a year than under labour in an entire term but lets not let facts get in the way of a good pop at tories

 

[Perados]

- too funny that old guy. Ignores Standard Oil and now we have Google, Mocrosoft and Facebook and many other Oligopoly.

- you don't need a license to be a doctor. The benefits of a free market.


https://youtu.be/qgrTeEToIX8

https://youtu.be/C1uSV3uOGdk



https://youtu.be/Wi-D24oCa10

https://youtu.be/RQHPVdgEyzg

 

[dandelion]

More houses built under Thatcher in a year than under labour in an entire term but lets not let facts get in the way of a good pop at tories

Thatcher inherited a policy of state house building and changed this into a policy of no state house building. That houses were still being built because they were already in the pipeline, and also because local councils tried to resist central government does not change who was resposible. Thatcher also took powers for greater control of local councils, so they couldnt raise money to spend on building, or even use the money they were getting from sales to build new ones to replace them.

Please get your facts right instead of trying to spread another myth. Labour did indeed fail to change all this back once they came to power, but its Thatcher and her conservative administration who quite deliberately set out to eliminate the entire stock of state owned housing. And to do that, they had to stop any more being built. And whats more, they probably had the aim that the rich would eventually end up owning those houses and then be able to charge big rents to the poor. It was absolutley deliberate policy aimed at creating the situation we have now. State ownership of assets helps the poor at the expense of the rich. (at least, unless the rich own the government too)

Brexit isnt going to help solve this problem. If we get rid of cheap labourers from abroad, it will mean the UK economy weakening and less government money, from taxes, to pay for anything. The conservatives created a national problem by ignoring the role of government in central planning to ensure that resources exist to allow industry to operate. in this case, housing. Brexit intended to stop immigration will have only a marginal effect on the housing shortage, and none at all if world immigration simply replaces EU migration, or we just let all the same people in under alternative rules (as seems highly likely).

Brexit is a sham which cannot succeed. Corbyn in the recent election attacked brexit exactly by discussing housing shortages (and other social issues) and not discussing Brexit. The manifesto indirectly made the point that Brexit is not a solution to anything, while the government talking about what sort of Brexit it wanted to implement drew attention to some of the drawbacks.

 

[Drifterwood]

sorry but here you mix MEDIAN and AVERAGE.

We have mean, median and mode. Which are you talking about?

 

[Drifterwood]

sorry but here you mix MEDIAN and AVERAGE.

The median is 21 - 22 k in Britain. That meains 50% of the British polulation earns less than 22k.
The average is more like 30k and then some more.

If you now argue the top 1% starts at 100k, it's still 5 times as much as 50% of all Brits earn.



100k might not be super wealthy, but if you run a system where more and more people get poor and can't afford to pay any tax, you will have to draw a line where people will have to pay more tax.
You don't like it? Create a more fair economical system
Yes it is, pilticians use every opportunity to tell the poor that they aren't as poor as they believe and the wealthy deserve some support, because they aren't as wealthy as the poor think. That's why we can increase VAT and reduce unemployment payments.

You can't expect that the wealthy are able to give more, but you can always expect that the poor get less. oh the poor doctor can't afford to live in London... well, then you will have to tell him what you told all the waiters, construction workers and grocery store employees the years before: You can't expect that evetyone can live in London.

That's the simple logic, at first you tell it the poor (because you are to lazy stingy) to care for them, then you will tell it the middle class out of the same reasons. Now you have to tell it the upper class and people start to worry...

Laughable

Doctors can afford to live somewhere in London.

What I actually said and you changed in your own mind was that a household income (not an indidual salary) of X would not make you wealthy if you had normal commitments in many parts of the UK. That household income can be four times the average salary with both earners being higher rate tax payers,

 

[Drifterwood]

We are where we are. The challenge now is to make Brexit work.

it.

I think you risk being very disappointed.

This may be the mantra of the nationalist leaning Brexiteer, but does the majority support this?

I don't think your average Corbyn voter swallows your Blitz spirit anymore. The plucky Baldrick has still got his face to the wheel. Why would he prioritise making Brexit work?

And then major industry. If a country stops working for their benefit or the symbiosis leans too far, they have a duty to leave. Your version of the national interest will not trump theirs.

Individual interest vs some concept of a national interest. But whose nation? What nation? I am more at home in Dublin than London.

London is what it is, but what it is, the nation apparently rejected in the Brexit vote. London's interest is not the nation's interest apparently.

How these issues will run will be critical and potentially could break and break up the UK. A remarkable throw of the dice by a political minority, especially as we don't have to be and never did have to be where we are.

 

[southeastone]

Thatcher inherited a policy of state house building and changed this into a policy of no state house building. That houses were still being built because they were already in the pipeline, and also because local councils tried to resist central government does not change who was resposible. Thatcher also took powers for greater control of local councils, so they couldnt raise money to spend on building, or even use the money they were getting from sales to build new ones to replace them.

Please get your facts right instead of trying to spread another myth. Labour did indeed fail to change all this back once they came to power, but its Thatcher and her conservative administration who quite deliberately set out to eliminate the entire stock of state owned housing. And to do that, they had to stop any more being built. And whats more, they probably had the aim that the rich would eventually end up owning those houses and then be able to charge big rents to the poor. It was absolutley deliberate policy aimed at creating the situation we have now. State ownership of assets helps the poor at the expense of the rich. (at least, unless the rich own the government too)

Brexit isnt going to help solve this problem. If we get rid of cheap labourers from abroad, it will mean the UK economy weakening and less government money, from taxes, to pay for anything. The conservatives created a national problem by ignoring the role of government in central planning to ensure that resources exist to allow industry to operate. in this case, housing. Brexit intended to stop immigration will have only a marginal effect on the housing shortage, and none at all if world immigration simply replaces EU migration, or we just let all the same people in under alternative rules (as seems highly likely).

Brexit is a sham which cannot succeed. Corbyn in the recent election attacked brexit exactly by discussing housing shortages (and other social issues) and not discussing Brexit. The manifesto indirectly made the point that Brexit is not a solution to anything, while the government talking about what sort of Brexit it wanted to implement drew attention to some of the drawbacks.

Blair & Brown built just 6500 council homes total in 13 years and let in 3 million + immigrants.

Thatcher never built less than 17500 PER YEAR so under Tories yearly average 41000 under Labour 550.

You can slate Thatcher all you like but her policies could have been changed easily under Blair but Labour chose to go further than Thatcher ever did or intended to do.

 

[Drifterwood]

Blair & Brown built just 6500 council homes total in 13 years and let in 3 million + immigrants.

Thatcher never built less than 17500 PER YEAR so under Tories yearly average 41000 under Labour 550.

You can slate Thatcher all you like but her policies could have been changed easily under Blair but Labour chose to go further than Thatcher ever did or intended to do.

Let's mark this in the diary. I agree. Blair and Brown turned the UK into a debt society.

 

[798686]

- too funny that old guy. Ignores Standard Oil and now we have Google, Mocrosoft and Facebook and many other Oligopoly.

- you don't need a license to be a doctor. The benefits of a free market.


https://youtu.be/qgrTeEToIX8

https://youtu.be/C1uSV3uOGdk



https://youtu.be/Wi-D24oCa10

https://youtu.be/RQHPVdgEyzg

Eww, look at the 1970s clothing.

 

[Perados]

We have mean, median and mode. Which are you talking about?

Okay you mean the median, but you wrote average.

 

[Perados]

Doctors can afford to live somewhere in London.

What I actually said and you changed in your own mind was that a household income (not an indidual salary) of X would not make you wealthy if you had normal commitments in many parts of the UK. That household income can be four times the average salary with both earners being higher rate tax payers,

I never doubt what you said, but then imagen how households would have to fight if their income is only 1/4X...
Like you said, the definition of wealthy depends on the income of others.
If you eran 4 times as much as the average (£27,000) you will be defined as wealthy.
That you have a small elite that earns 400 times as much just shows how unequal our societies have become.


Again, we were able to pay higher tax in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Even in the 1990s the taxation was higher. Why not return to this standard?

 

[Jason]

The UK Cabinet are meeting on Monday. Nothing unusual about this, but the chatter is that the meeting is to agree Brexit policy. In effect May, Davis and Johnson will put forward a strategy and gauge the response of the Cabinet. There seem to be three possibilities:

1) CONCESSIONS. The UK will concede a lot. More money. Transition under ECJ. Dual legal system in the UK with ECJ having jurisdiction over EU nationals. Customs union. Concessions may be just part of these, but the realisation is that the concessions route probably does ultimately mean the whole lot.

2) DO NOTHING. Wait and see whether the EU will blink, whether the December talks will happen.

3) WALK. The UK sets out that a divorce settlement is contingent on a trade deal and cannot be agreed separately. In effect this means assertion of a whole lot of other red lines also. If the EU subsequently wants to talk that is fine, but the UK walks out of talks.

The chatter is that there is no point in holding a meeting over (2). Therefore on Monday we will get a view as to whether the UK favours appeasement or sovereignty. And yes, there is a grey area. Applying (1) now doesn't rule out applying (3) later, and (3) might still lead to a deal.

Politically the government would have a lot of difficulty getting concessions through. A considerable number of Conservative MPs would rebel. Labour wants to humiliate the government so I suppose Labour would vote against concessions. I struggle with the idea that (1) is possible. The reality of a weak government is that there are some tough decisions that it cannot take.

Option (3) also has its UK challenges, but it is within the competence of the Cabinet. Once made parliament could demand that the UK renounce its decision and go back to the EU to talk. However this would split Labour, and I think most Conservatives would toe the line. I think therefore (3) is possible, and may be the only decision that is politically possible.

The potential problems with (3) are the markets. My view is that hard Brexit is priced in. A decision for (3) should be followed by a budget for (3). I think this is possible. There's also an issue around presentation. However I think there would be real support for the PM. I think it could do for May what the Falklands War did for Thatcher.

 

[Jason]

I never doubt what you said, but then imagen how households would have to fight if their income is only 1/4X...
Like you said, the definition of wealthy depends on the income of others.
If you eran 4 times as much as the average (£27,000) you will be defined as wealthy.
That you have a small elite that earns 400 times as much just shows how unequal our societies have become.


Again, we were able to pay higher tax in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Even in the 1990s the taxation was higher. Why not return to this standard?

The UK has relatively small differences between high and low earners, and these differences are getting smaller.

In the UK an MP earns £75,000pa. This is a good salary. It's about the same as a train driver (and train drivers work four-day weeks) and a fraction more than a surgeon working in the NHS. The PM has a salary of £150,000. In international terms this is modest. Yes, we do have people earning more: pop stars, footballers, a very few bankers. I don't think I know a single person earning this sort of salary. They are incredibly rare.

Ideas around taxing people who earn over £1m, or £500k, or £100k miss the point that there are so very few in these categories. It achieves nothing. Personally I think even a level tax (of X% for everyone over a threshold) is wrong. We should reach a stage where we say to people that they have contributed enough. Perhaps we should tax income from £11k to £151k at a flat rate, then say to people above £151k that they pay tax on £140k and that's it. Unfortunately we are stuck in the politics of envy of the ignorant socialist. The idea seems to be that it is good to squeeze the rich and that this will lead to more tax revenue - of course both are wrong.

 

[Perados]

The UK has relatively small differences between high and low earners, and these differences are getting smaller.

In the UK an MP earns £75,000pa. This is a good salary. It's about the same as a train driver (and train drivers work four-day weeks) and a fraction more than a surgeon working in the NHS. The PM has a salary of £150,000. In international terms this is modest. Yes, we do have people earning more: pop stars, footballers, a very few bankers. I don't think I know a single person earning this sort of salary. They are incredibly rare.

Merkel gets 200,000 € not much more as May. The problem with Merkel's taxation isn't only that its at 42% (1995 it would have been 49%), but that she doesn't contribute to the general unemployment or health insurance and not even to the general pension payments. - just like every other politician, or officer.

Another problem is, if you earn more than 60,000€ your payments for these insurances get limited. In percentage your contribution declines.

Ideas around taxing people who earn over £1m, or £500k, or £100k miss the point that there are so very few in these categories. It achieves nothing. Personally I think even a level tax (of X% for everyone over a threshold) is wrong. We should reach a stage where we say to people that they have contributed enough. Perhaps we should tax income from £11k to £151k at a flat rate, then say to people above £151k that they pay tax on £140k and that's it. Unfortunately we are stuck in the politics of envy of the ignorant socialist. The idea seems to be that it is good to squeeze the rich and that this will lead to more tax revenue - of course both are wrong.

a flat tax is the most unfair system you can imagen and is totally unacceptable. It's just as unfair as the VAT.


You think it's envy and ignorance?
You missed to name the CEOs and board members, who earn 400 times as much. You also missed all the inheritors who don't have to work at all, but live by the investments of their ancestors.
If these people wouldn't be so greedy and ignorant, maybe others wouldn't show envy


Btw I wouldn't call it envy, to ask those who eat more as they should/can for a warm meal every day.

 

[dandelion]

Therefore on Monday we will get a view as to whether the UK favours appeasement or sovereignty.

We certainly will not. At best we will find out what 60 MPs think, chosen to be MPs almost entirely by small groups of party members who made them candidates in safe seats.

In any event, what they have to decide is how to get the tory party out of its disastrous policy of Brexit. We are now close to the point where the Uk has to decided formally what it wants. Crazy that this has not happened in the year and a half since the referendum, but although the cabinet might understand the issues, they also know that announcing a decision would slash their national support, because it is guaranteed to upset one group or another.

They have to decided whether to push ahead with an unpopular policy of hard brexit, opposed by voters 6:1, or compromise with the EU and go for soft Brexit, opposed by about 1.1:1. Unfortunately either choice will upset their supporters. Or, they can cut their losses and go wholly remain on the grounds that if any Brexit proceeds the undisclosed diffculties will still keep coming and eventually destroy the conservative party anyway.

They are facing an existential crisis and do not know what to do.

To make matters worse, the Irish have declared they will not accept any deal without an open Irish border. The EU supports this. The Irish peace deal requires the government to accept the will of the irish on this, and they voted remain. The only way forward on this is an open southern border and sea customs border, if they go for hard Brexit for mainland UK. This solution is unacceptable to their Irish coalition partner

Hard Brexit is dead in the water in terms of any kind of 'have cake and eat it' solution. 'No dea'l is dead in the water as far as voters are concerned. The government has ruled out soft Brexit. It has ruled out remain. There is nothing it can go which it would find acceptable.

Either it will fall as a government, or it will continue and destroy the tory party, or it must switch either to soft brexit or remain. And neither of those would leave it very popular with its own voters. so I have been saying for some time, its best hope is to stop being the government by whatever device it can manage.

 

[185248]

I don't know why people think b

The UK Cabinet are meeting on Monday. Nothing unusual about this, but the chatter is that the meeting is to agree Brexit policy. In effect May, Davis and Johnson will put forward a strategy and gauge the response of the Cabinet. There seem to be three possibilities:

1) CONCESSIONS. The UK will concede a lot. More money. Transition under ECJ. Dual legal system in the UK with ECJ having jurisdiction over EU nationals. Customs union. Concessions may be just part of these, but the realisation is that the concessions route probably does ultimately mean the whole lot.

2) DO NOTHING. Wait and see whether the EU will blink, whether the December talks will happen.

3) WALK. The UK sets out that a divorce settlement is contingent on a trade deal and cannot be agreed separately. In effect this means assertion of a whole lot of other red lines also. If the EU subsequently wants to talk that is fine, but the UK walks out of talks.

The chatter is that there is no point in holding a meeting over (2). Therefore on Monday we will get a view as to whether the UK favours appeasement or sovereignty. And yes, there is a grey area. Applying (1) now doesn't rule out applying (3) later, and (3) might still lead to a deal.

Politically the government would have a lot of difficulty getting concessions through. A considerable number of Conservative MPs would rebel. Labour wants to humiliate the government so I suppose Labour would vote against concessions. I struggle with the idea that (1) is possible. The reality of a weak government is that there are some tough decisions that it cannot take.

Option (3) also has its UK challenges, but it is within the competence of the Cabinet. Once made parliament could demand that the UK renounce its decision and go back to the EU to talk. However this would split Labour, and I think most Conservatives would toe the line. I think therefore (3) is possible, and may be the only decision that is politically possible.

The potential problems with (3) are the markets. My view is that hard Brexit is priced in. A decision for (3) should be followed by a budget for (3). I think this is possible. There's also an issue around presentation. However I think there would be real support for the PM. I think it could do for May what the Falklands War did for Thatcher.

I'll go with # 2. Because it involves making someone else responsible for policy and delay, hoping some other national or world headline will take precedence . Take heart in the knowing it's no different to any government of this time.

To look to shift responsibility to another. Yes, it's all the EU's fault the UK wants to depart.

The whole thing if you think about it is one big marriage breakup. Blame is the game.

 

[southeastone]

Looks like another deadline passes for Merkel, will new elections have to be called? add that to Macrons still falling rating and maybe we see why the EU is delaying Brexit negotiations.

 

[Perados]

Looks like another deadline passes for Merkel, will new elections have to be called? add that to Macrons still falling rating and maybe we see why the EU is delaying Brexit negotiations.

Neither Macron nor Merkel are part of the negotiations, so maybe the reason for delay remains that Britain has absolutely no plan. That's why they refuse to negotiate.

 

[southeastone]

Neither Macron nor Merkel are part of the negotiations, .

You cannot honestly believe that Perados, you are far to intelligent for that.

 

[Jason]

There's a new word to go into our vocabularies, along with Brexit and Remoaner. The new word is RESHORING. It's where manufacturers that have moved from UK and elsewhere off-shore (mostly to Asia) decide to establish new manufacturing plants in the UK. Recent announcements are from these:

Clarks (shoes)
McLaren (cars)
BooHoo (fashion)
ASOS (fashion)
Cadbury (chocolate)
EE (telecoms)
IKEA (furniture manufacturing)

These firms are hoping for a hard Brexit. They want to supply the UK market (so they don't actually want competition from the EU and would love tariffs) and they want to supply USA etcetera from the UK. They are not seeing the EU as their primary market.

Sectors where companies are looking at reshoring include automotive, planes, trains, space, defence, medical and energy. This is just about every area.

The challenge for the budget (Wednesday) is to give these sectors good reason to come to the UK.