UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
message 5901:
by
Michael
(new)
Apr 02, 2018 07:42AM
Not simply due to having a trade deficit, no.
reply
|
flag
Michael, I think that you are confusing the current account deficit run by HMG (which I agree is immaterial) with a trade deficit. The last time we ran a trade deficit of the current proportions, we ended up needing a bailout from the IMF to survive. I cannot presume you think that was a good thing? Or just irrelevant?And yes, stop for a moment and think: a deficit DOES mean that money flows out of the country. How else are these imports paid for? Yes, imports will become more expensive. This is good . Therefore people change their purchasing habits, and domestic suppliers arise to fill the gap and the economy starts to rebalance, which we desperately need
The Wikipedia article above explains it:Friedman argued that trade deficits are not necessarily important, as high exports raise the value of the currency, reducing aforementioned exports, and vice versa for imports, thus naturally removing trade deficits not due to investment. Since 1971, when the Nixon administration decided to abolish fixed exchange rates, America's Current Account accumulated trade deficits have totaled $7.75 trillion as of 2010. This deficit exists as it is matched by investment coming into the United States – purely by the definition of the balance of payments, any current account deficit that exists is matched by an inflow of foreign investment.
Michael Cargill wrote: "The Wikipedia article above explains it:..."
So you agree then that a country can continue with a trade deficit for ever and never suffer any ill effects?
Yes.It's possible for a country to run a trade surplus for eternity, yet be an economic ruin.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Yes.It's possible for a country to run a trade surplus for eternity, yet be an economic ruin."
so when you run the trade deficit for ever, what do you pay for the difference with?
There is no difference that needs to be paid, because it's not a revenue vs outgoings comparison.It's the people and businesses within the country that trade, not the country itself.
David's link explains why the Trade Deficit isn't a big deal. The IMF bail-out came about because people stopped wanting to lend the UK GOVERNMENT money, not the same thing at all. The pound is currently supported by the people who want to bring their money here. Post the Brexit vote, they have been a bit more reticent, and the pound has fallen as a consequence. So the trade imbalance has reduced, though people are mostly worse off because their salaries haven't kept up with the increased costs of imports. The EU treaties enshrine the notion of subsidiarity. I have votes for my council, Westminster and the EU parliament. I am losing one of these votes post-Brexit. There will be less democracy, not more.
There are economists who think Brexit will be a good thing. See e.g. Brexit-loving Economists.
In order to come to reach this conclusion they have to assume:
1) The impact of non-tariff barriers to trade are hugely over-stated.
2) A whole load of things that could be happening now, but which aren't, will happen after Brexit.
3) Stupid things in the pipeline for post-Brexit won't happen.
For point 1, the abject failure of GATS, the General Agreement on Trade in Services, to actually boost trade in services, seems to argue that the non-tariff barriers to UK trade are as significant everybody else thinks they are.
For point 2, it comes down to, why on earth will Brexit make a difference? A few examples.
Germany does 5 times as much trade with the Chinese as does the UK, with us both in the EU. Why should being out of the EU turn the UK into a Germany-beating trade powerhouse?
Why should UK institutions start to favour investment in productive assets ahead of Ponzi-style speculative schemes post-Brexit? The EU didn't tell anybody to sell NINJA (No Income, Job or Assets) Mortgages and parcel them up with 'prime' assets and sell the whole lot on as 'prime' assets, but our banks cheerfully embraced this madness, and we are still living with the consequences.
Why should UK bureaucrats regulate us better post-Brexit? After all, every single regulation that bugs Jim at the moment was written by a bureaucrat in England, and there are going to be many more English bureaucrats. Why should the new bureaucrats make better decisions than hitherto?
As an example of point 3, they assume that since the planned reform of immigration procedures with the end of free movement will be catastrophic, it won't happen as currently envisaged.
oh pleaseThe EU treaties enshrine the notion of subsidiarity.
Have a word with Michael, He's the one who pointed out that "Again, 'ever closer union' has no actual definition to it." He also said "
'Ever closer union' is more of an ideal than an actual specific policy. "
Are you telling us that in reality 'subsidiarity' has an actual definition to it or is it to 'more of an ideal than an actual specific policy' ?
David wrote: "Why should UK bureaucrats regulate us better post-Brexit? After all, every single regulation that bugs Jim at the moment was written by a bureaucrat in England, and there are going to be many more English bureaucrats. Why should the new bureaucrats make better decisions than hitherto?..."
That is technically wrong. I've been part of the process.
The EU produces a regulation, the UK attempts to put that regulation into practice. As the UK regulation is hammered out, often with the assistance of 'stakeholders' there is a constant back and forth between the UK department and the appropriate EU office making sure that our regulation is in line with EU thinking because the departments are terrified that if they get it wrong, the UK will be fined and the Treasury will be displeased with them.
I saw this work with defra a number of times. The stakeholder meetings normally started with a run down of how the appropriate EU official had reacted to the previous suggestions
Jim wrote: ... there is a constant back and forth between the UK department and the appropriate EU office making sure that our regulation is in line with EU thinking because the departments are terrified ...I have also seen this process, in Scotland rather than England, so strictly speaking my evidence applies to Scottish rather than English bureaucrats. But from what I saw, the main drivers for the final form that regulations took were inter-sectional political competition within the bureaucracy, the EU inspectors were happy with any old bollocks, and from the point of view of the poor sods being regulated, the Scottish versions of the regulation created 'a fence about the law'.
The UK bureaucracy likes dealing with our vast commercial engines of complacency and mediocrity if not worse, the Carillions, BT's, Crapitas and BAe's of this world, and Brexit will amplify this tendency in line with the increase in the size of the bureaucracy. No good will come of it.
'Subsidiarity' is a general principle of EU law, and it does have a specific meaning.The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as "the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level".
In stark contrast to 'ever closer union'.
David wrote: " The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as ..."Unless the OED is the defined EU legal text, it's definition is irrelevant
David wrote: "the EU inspectors were happy with any old bollocks, .."scots experience is obviously very different. Also we weren't dealing with EU inspectors but with heads of the departments in Brussels etc
InterestingMost of the ladies of my acquaintance would be more annoyed by being called Ms. But this is a cultural thing.
But actually in a world where people are allowed to self identify from a whole range of things, why is it wrong for somebody to self identify as a Doctor, especially when they have been awarded the qualification.
I know that currently it's not considered fashionable for somebody to be referred to by their military rank, when in a non-military situation. (Although it is perfectly proper, a chap I know who retired from the navy as a Commodore was somewhat surprised to get mail addressed to him as Commodore ..... from an organisation that is a little old fashioned and formal.)
When talking to people with titles I tend to work by how well I know them.
Kath wrote: "If you've got it, flaunt it."Darn tootin'. Especially if it's a hard earned honour.
Jim, I prefer to be known as Mizz, (or Ms). My marital status shouldn't have any baring on my social status. I feel it's the closest equivent we have to 'Mr' in the English lexicon at the moment.
I've been known to get really pissed off when referred to as 'Mrs Dave'.
How very dare anyone assume they can strip me of my identity in such a manner?
This has, for me, started another hare running.I can see why you dislike Mrs Dave, my lady wife does, but it's interesting when you consider identity.
When I was at school we had two separate schools next to each other. A boy's grammar school and a girl's grammar school.
They were run separately but were adjacent. They occasionally shared staff.
In the boy's school boys were known by their surnames by staff and other pupils, unless they had a nickname which pupils would use.
One master transferred to one school and inadvertently reduced a girl to tears merely by referring to her by her surname. The girls were always addressed by their christian names.
I never knew the christian names of most of the lads I went to school with.
Then for the two generation before me, men were reduced to numbers by the army and suchlike, and were often referred to as number and surname.
It's probably changing now, but even in my life time men were used to being stripped of their identity as individuals
Patti (baconater) wrote: "I've been known to get really pissed off when referred to as 'Mrs Dave'..."Yet I have only chuckled on those occasions when I have been called 'Mr. Susan.'
I’ll always remember my mum entering our hotel in Bournemouth, (think Fawlty Towers). A older man rudely let the door go in her face. She didn’t hesitate, “Thank you mister” she said sarcastically. He turned “I’ll have you know I’m a major”. She said, “Well I’m not in the army and you’re not my bloody major,”
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "I’ll always remember my mum entering our hotel in Bournemouth, (think Fawlty Towers). A older man rudely let the door go in her face. She didn’t hesitate, “Thank you mister” she said sarcastically...."Well, at least he wasn't a Wing Commander!
I refuse to use any titles, considering them a relic of a feudal system I reject.I make one honourable exception to this: Sir Terry Pratchett.
I think a doctorate that you've earned by you own hard work is different. I'm happy to call a PhD by the title of doctor.
The BBC introduces "Professors" as "Professor", whether they are medical doctors or PhD's. I don't have any feelings as to how I myself am addressed; I went through secondary school as "Dimmo", and working on Adventure Playgrounds got used to "Oi, Clothears", but I believe that the selection of the terms of address says a lot about perceived status in our society. Germans point out to me that in Germany, "Engineers" are addressed as "Engineer", and remark that it says something about the relative status of engineers in our respective nations (and likely says something about the differences in our industrial performance).At the memorial service for my late Father-In-Law (MBE, MC), the military types all requested that they be introduced as "Rank (retired)".
I do know a person with a PhD who insists on being called Dr. He works in a medical union and that is deliberately misleading .
I know a teacher who insisted the kids call her 'Dr Surname'. I quite agree with the 'Dr' bit but I do think using your surname with little ones is terribly distancing.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "I know a teacher who insisted the kids call her 'Dr Surname'. I quite agree with the 'Dr' bit but I do think using your surname with little ones is terribly distancing."
Well, I have always preferred "Sir Name" myself.
Behave. I've not had my coffee yet.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Behave. I've not had my coffee yet."Hopefully with a side of bacon.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "I know a teacher who insisted the kids call her 'Dr Surname'. I quite agree with the 'Dr' bit but I do think using your surname with little ones is terribly distancing."
At primary and junior school we always called teachers by their surname, normally miss, mrs or very occasionally mr.
It caused chaos when a female teacher got married. I know ladies in their sixties who still addressed my mother as Miss Park, even though she'd been married over fifty years.
And of course male teachers kept getting called Miss as well because teachers were female
I love how often I'm called 'mummy'.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "I love how often I'm called 'mummy'."yes, my mother used to get that at school with the very little ones :-)
So do male teachers in Primaries! Morning.
morning madamI suppose it's less embarrassing for a male teacher than being called 'Daddy'
Dave's been called daddy occasionally over the years.
My sister went to school parents evening to see Miss Trunt the form teacher. She thought it was an odd name but said nothing to her her daughter. She looked all over at the female teachers and couldnt find Miss Trunt. She did find Mr. Hunt though.
So, I've been bombarded with this advert every time I look at the telly this holiday.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gf_Vahl...
Can't believe they're using this marketing technique in 2018!
the old 'he's an idiot who only survives because his wife knows what to do' is still a common enough advert theme
They should be called out on it.I need to get some of that sort of stuff to replenish our first aid kit for Myanmar. Won't be buying that brand.
How much???And how can you tell if a cow has diarrhoea? Seriously?
£8.50 for eight tablets.For a person I'd break a tablet in half, and then half again, and one tablet will provide everything you need to get you sorted :-)
And they keep for years in the packaging
Trust me, with calves, it's obvious, cows can be as well, almost entirely liquid
And I'm obscurely proud that you're properly educated and spell Diarrhoea properly :-)
I bought some rehydrating white coloured powder for the dogs. A teaspoon to a pint of water and kept it in a jar, last week I found it in the cupboard, it had gone a purplish Brown and solidified. God knows what was in it. Don’t they suggest salt & sugar in water is a good alternative.
yes vets tell us that in case of emergencies, salt and sugar in water
When we were deathly ill in India, we took lemonade and salty crackers, as that's all we could find.Since then, I make sure we never travel without ciprofloxacin and rehydrate powder.
I was told at uni that in desperate circumstances you can boil rice and drink the water the rice was cooked in.
I seem to remember that being standard ex-Army trick from Burma etc
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
