With the European market crashing, the pound losing massive value overnight, many people not fully understanding what the EU was, and the millions of dollars it's going to cost to leave the EU, do you think the United Kingdom would vote to leave if they voted again today?
Personally I think they have some buyer remorse, but they realize the consequences are short term right now.
I see more country leaving the EU
IMO, from the Brits I know - most of whom wanted out (ironic since they all work in finance, which seems like it would be the most affected) - none of this is coming as any surprise, but they do believe it's going to be temporary as a hysterical overreaction of the market.
But the EU was never an economic project, it was a political project that used economic levers. And this is really too bad, because UK basically indicated last week that they don't want to be part of the project of European unification, and that they don't want to be part of the European family. Too bad, because the project seems to have been working pretty well over the last six-seven decades.
And it's also too bad because everyone would consider the UK one of Europe's big brothers (along with Frane and Germany), so it is only proper that they should be a leader in this project, especially after all the drama over joining the European Community in the 1960s. Even Margaret Thatcher accepted Britain's leadership role in the inevitable EU and the European family, even as she pushed back against Brussels and the hard-core Federalists. So it's really a shame, I think.
So the bottom line is that they are in a very good position to keep the parts they like and jettison the rest, so it may work out very well for them.
However, as mentioned, the EU imo is a political/ideological project. Based on this, the political/ideological statement that Britain made in their vote is sad.
So the bottom line is that they are in a very good position to keep the parts they like and jettison the rest, so it may work out very well for them.
EU may push back very hard on an ala carte approach. Sounds like some in the EU want this to hurt. They dont want to give anyone else any bright ideas.
These people generally don't have money in the stock market and the pound falling will make British exports cheaper and stimulate production.
I was surprised that they didn't have a minimum percentage criteria to meet. Seems it was way too close to call to make such a huge statement.
Bingo.
And right now Britain's "allies" at the FED, ECB and the Treasury of the US and EU nations are dumping the shit out of every GBP asset they can to punish their "friend".
Wave in GBP assets and while this is happening, look like a star portfolio manager at year end.
EU may push back very hard on an ala carte approach. Sounds like some in the EU want this to hurt.
That's a little like hitting yourself over the head with a 2x4 because it feels good when you stop. That's not to say they won't do it.
These people generally don't have money in the stock market and the pound falling will make British exports cheaper and stimulate production.
I'm welcome to the idea that the strictly "old vs young" narrative isn't what actually happened. But surely there are working class people in London and Scotland too right? It is interesting how they break down the demographics on what area voted what. For example - areas with high immigration voted to remain. Which could possible mean those with likely the most experience with immigrants are pro EU. Those without that level of interaction with immigrants likely were anti - EU. People fear change.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/ - ( New Window )
If there is domestic inflation as Sterling falls, then it would be Prediction:Pain.
NorwayEuropean Union relations - ( New Window )
I wonder when we might see a time where people take political claims with a grain of salt and engage in critical thinking before making huge impactful decisions.
I'm going to guess never....
Roughly 1000 people in a nation of 60+ million is more meme-worthy than argument-worthy.
So yeah, remain would win in a landslide if it happened again.
So yeah, remain would win in a landslide if it happened again.
It's also possible that some of the Remains would be sufficiently offended by the attempt to hold another fucking referendum because the powers that be didn't get the answer they wanted the first time and would vote to Leave.
Quote:
It would be overwhelmingly in favor of remaining. A lot of younger voters who would have voted to remain just didn't vote (sounds familiar) and they would in a second round of voting. Not to mention all of the people who are pining for a second vote... it's up to what, 3 million now? If even a chunk of those millions would be new voters, that would sway things even more. Plus the people who are caught up in the aftermath of this and seeing how the markets are reacting to it. They would vote to remain thinking it might fix things. Then you have numerous people coming out and admitting they didn't know all of this would happen just because they voted to leave. That they just got caught up in it and thought it wouldn't be that big of a deal (lol)
So yeah, remain would win in a landslide if it happened again.
It's also possible that some of the Remains would be sufficiently offended by the attempt to hold another fucking referendum because the powers that be didn't get the answer they wanted the first time and would vote to Leave.
Scott Walker agrees
I suspect like most things, in the long run this will be just another thing...
and enriching themselves. They want to take
back their countries, trade,jobs, safety, sovereignty and culture. Seems to cover it.
I would argue those
that want the EU might not understand the consequences,
or are 1% types. How in the world can anyone agree with
a bunch of political bureaucrats in Belgium that are not elected by a given countries people making laws that directly affect them?
and enriching themselves. They want to take
back their countries, trade,jobs, safety, sovereignty and culture. Seems to cover it.
I would argue those
that want the EU might not understand the consequences,
or are 1% types. How in the world can anyone agree with
a bunch of political bureaucrats in Belgium that are not elected by a given countries people making laws that directly affect them?
The counter argument is that the EU, and various other global unions or organizations in that vein in theory promote unity, similar rules and regulations over large areas, and improved relations. In practice that may not always be the case but your argument above has some holes too.
How is centralizing power in Belgium worse than centralizing it in London? The guy in some shitty rural town out in the boonies of the U.K. should secede since some fat cat in London is in government? The argument above just boils down to fiefdoms for all. You could take this tangent a few steps further and advocate the elimination of all governments and global bodies.
God damn UN and global treaties treading on my self-given rights....
Quote:
the global elite selling them down the river
and enriching themselves. They want to take
back their countries, trade,jobs, safety, sovereignty and culture. Seems to cover it.
I would argue those
that want the EU might not understand the consequences,
or are 1% types. How in the world can anyone agree with
a bunch of political bureaucrats in Belgium that are not elected by a given countries people making laws that directly affect them?
The counter argument is that the EU, and various other global unions or organizations in that vein in theory promote unity, similar rules and regulations over large areas, and improved relations. In practice that may not always be the case but your argument above has some holes too.
How is centralizing power in Belgium worse than centralizing it in London? The guy in some shitty rural town out in the boonies of the U.K. should secede since some fat cat in London is in government? The argument above just boils down to fiefdoms for all. You could take this tangent a few steps further and advocate the elimination of all governments and global bodies.
God damn UN and global treaties treading on my self-given rights....
NWO sucks
I think people dismissing those that voted to Leave as uneducated or out of touch rubes clinging to their past don't do themselves any favors.
I think people dismissing those that voted to Leave as uneducated or out of touch rubes clinging to their past don't do themselves any favors.
There's also the fact that the person doing the screwing in Brussels is one further step removed from the screwee than the person in London. One step further away from accountability.
I think people dismissing those that voted to Leave as uneducated or out of touch rubes clinging to their past don't do themselves any favors.
I have no horse in this race. Doesn't really affect me either way. I do agree with you on all points above. In this case it's possible the guy outside of London fucked the guy in Scotland out of something he may want. I think the history the scots have with England is not a benefit to the English.
Everyone, myself included has simplified this complicated situation into a viewpoint they can easily articulate and argue. Even the voters - Leave vs remain??? Those really aren't the only 2 options here. They were never in the EU, and I think a massive majority want major access to, travel in, and benefits of the EU. This majority IMO also want sovereignty and a whole host of other things. Just my two cents. Everyone wants their cake and to it too. There were repercussions either way, no option was going to lead to absolute destruction or pure utopia.
I am impressed that you can speak intelligently to the quality of life, sentiment and future prospects for people 3,000 miles away. How elite of you....
Quote:
the global elite selling them down the river
and enriching themselves. They want to take
back their countries, trade,jobs, safety, sovereignty and culture. Seems to cover it.
I would argue those
that want the EU might not understand the consequences,
or are 1% types. How in the world can anyone agree with
a bunch of political bureaucrats in Belgium that are not elected by a given countries people making laws that directly affect them?
The counter argument is that the EU, and various other global unions or organizations in that vein in theory promote unity, similar rules and regulations over large areas, and improved relations. In practice that may not always be the case but your argument above has some holes too.
How is centralizing power in Belgium worse than centralizing it in London? The guy in some shitty rural town out in the boonies of the U.K. should secede since some fat cat in London is in government? The argument above just boils down to fiefdoms for all. You could take this tangent a few steps further and advocate the elimination of all governments and global bodies.
God damn UN and global treaties treading on my self-given rights....
Going a little over the top their Patrick?
Actually we should move the home around the world every 20 years or so that it would be an actual world wide organization and other cultures experience the privilege of having that world organization on their soil.
Hell, We do it with sporting events. Wouldn't you think this would be a little more prestigious?
Think of the advantages of having the UN stationed, oh lets say in Syria right now.
Think the middle east would have a different look?
If the entire argument espoused is that government should be located in the physical world close to the people then the only close to acceptable form of government would be your local town council or everyone having their personal fiefdom.
If the entire argument espoused is that government should be located in the physical world close to the people then the only close to acceptable form of government would be your local town council or everyone having their personal fiefdom.
Sounds eerily similar to a country having local state and federal rule with the local doing the best for their area as they know the best for their citizens,the state for their particular state, and the federal overseeing national needs.
Sure wish someone would have thought about that a couple centuries ago.
Quote:
Just like you putting the UN in Syria. No different.
If the entire argument espoused is that government should be located in the physical world close to the people then the only close to acceptable form of government would be your local town council or everyone having their personal fiefdom.
Sounds eerily similar to a country having local state and federal rule with the local doing the best for their area as they know the best for their citizens,the state for their particular state, and the federal overseeing national needs.
Sure wish someone would have thought about that a couple centuries ago.
Your Team 'Murica post aside...
At what point did the EU start to tread on local UK government rights and responsibilities?
So the bottom line is that they are in a very good position to keep the parts they like and jettison the rest, so it may work out very well for them.
England isn't in a good position to dictate the terms of their exit. The EU holds all the cards at that table and by all indication they mean for England to pay dearly.
Since the EU is run from Belgium? The government now becomes the local and trickles down. Not that hard to understand.
Now we know why the leave won.
Your world societal views is the main reason. Everyone wants to be from somewhere.
By the way, I would have more than likely voted to stay.
Should this vote have required a supermajority (I'm not sure if UK elections ever require such a thing)? Or maybe at least 60%?
The British tabloids and papers were overwhelmingly LEAVE.
IDN
Longer this goes on, looks like the stay crowd is panicking.
It seems more and more obvious.
It'll be a while before anything happens whether it a revote or whatever.
That it would be a gradual severance will play into the leave crowd's favor.
Never as dire one way or the other.
Quote:
that the remain vote would win by a big margin. All those leaders would were staunchly for Britex are now speaking in subdued tones and walking back some of their pronouncements.
IDN
Longer this goes on, looks like the stay crowd is panicking.
It seems more and more obvious.
It'll be a while before anything happens whether it a revote or whatever.
That it would be a gradual severance will play into the leave crowd's favor.
Never as dire one way or the other.
That's the thing, both France and Germany want England out post haste. France and Germany plainly state that they don't want this thing dragging out. In the long term England will be all right. However, the short to intermediate term England will be worse off for leaving the EU.
It's like passing the bill in order to know what's in it.
(Sorry, it was low hanging fruit!)
Second, as it turns out, unless Britain (or England or whatever it'll be) wants to make trade deals that put it at a considerable competitive disadvantage, they'll have to allow pretty much the same freedom of movement across borders that they have now, so they won't be able to keep out cheap labor from Eastern Europe. Unless they want to be basically screwed in trading with their main partners.
Those two things mean key supposed benefits of Brexit are now looking like empty, basically un-keepable campaign promises.
Third, there are areas of Britain that benefit quite a bit from EU subsidies. Some of those areas voted for "Leave." But now they are realizing they're going to lose their subsidies. Those areas, and the people who live there, may now realize that they, too, accrued benefits from the EU, which they threw away.
Beyond that: Scotland will probably either try to block Brexit in its own parliament or have another referendum on independence -- and this time it would choose to break away. Northern Ireland will not want to suddenly have border crossings to and from the Republic of Ireland, with passport checks -- there'll be a push for Irish reunification. So the U.K. could easily fly apart. Do you think maybe 1/10 of the Leave voters would change their vote if they knew it would save the U.K.? 1/10 of leave voters changing would flip the outcome.
I think it's going to be tough to stop these dominoes from falling. If they do, the rump Kingdom of England & Wales (Throwback to 1706!) will be left competing at a disadvantage, and while it's negotiating dozens of new trade deals, it can stew about whether it wants to try to get back into the EU as a much smaller, less powerful, less influential nation.
Quote:
In comment 13011658 compton said:
Quote:
that the remain vote would win by a big margin. All those leaders would were staunchly for Britex are now speaking in subdued tones and walking back some of their pronouncements.
IDN
Longer this goes on, looks like the stay crowd is panicking.
It seems more and more obvious.
It'll be a while before anything happens whether it a revote or whatever.
That it would be a gradual severance will play into the leave crowd's favor.
Never as dire one way or the other.
That's the thing, both France and Germany want England out post haste. France and Germany plainly state that they don't want this thing dragging out. In the long term England will be all right. However, the short to intermediate term England will be worse off for leaving the EU.
All we can do is wait and see.
Should this vote have required a supermajority (I'm not sure if UK elections ever require such a thing)? Or maybe at least 60%?
Scotland tries to.reduce the voting age to 16 to increase the likelihood of victory. 50% +1 of the electorate, potentially a minority of the traditional electorate, could have severed a much older, much more enduring connection.
Quote:
as my Southern customers often say, "I really don't have a dog in this fight." At least I personally didn't feel that strongly for or against "Brexit". However, such a potentially nation altering decision would seem to require more than just a simple majority. As folks have said, 2% would have swung the vote the other way.
Should this vote have required a supermajority (I'm not sure if UK elections ever require such a thing)? Or maybe at least 60%?
Scotland tries to.reduce the voting age to 16 to increase the likelihood of victory. 50% +1 of the electorate, potentially a minority of the traditional electorate, could have severed a much older, much more enduring connection.
Upon rereading it isn't clear, was referring to their independence referendum. Which would be much thornier of a divorce.
"but muh globalism!"
A majority just democratically voted to tell the EU to pound sand. Naturally those in favor of the status quo are salty.
Que sunglasses deal-with-it GIF.
IMO, from the Brits I know - most of whom wanted out (ironic since they all work in finance, which seems like it would be the most affected) - none of this is coming as any surprise, but they do believe it's going to be temporary as a hysterical overreaction of the market.
From what I've seen & read most Brits understood there would hard times in the begining but went ahead anyway. Just tired of someone on the continent regulating them.
So you would have a plebiscite in our country force a plurality in congress over the constitutional system we have in place? The vote carries weight, the prime minister has resigned, but the Britons will have a process and it is not clear what that will be.
Me, on a sports message board, I predict the UK negotiates a face saving way to minimize damage and remain in the EU substantively.
Germany is the key to the politics vis a vis Russia, not so much the UK which has always toted the US line. Putin likes Brexit as a sign of weakness in the west, but it is not that ... It is an anger vote. It is Europe, they will figure a face saving way out.
The US is the only real power in Europe.
The world is getting smaller and international groups such as the EU are inevitable if we are to progress. Isolationalists and those who'll cry foul of any centralized power will continue to do so. Are there flaws? Course.
There were flaws with the League of Nations, too. It ultimately failed to prevent WWII, but it lain the groundwork for the UN which adapted to a post war world. It's served US (capital US) reasonably well for several generations, despite a quickly changing world. It too may go the way of the dodo, but it'll be replaced by some other such organization.
One thing we do know is the path forward has never been isolation and protectionist policies. You'd think some people would learn from history.
This is from five years ago, long before the refugee crisis - ( New Window )
Yeah, but you always do.
Exactly. And the overbearing regulations. I've just read in the past few days that the EU is talking about banning electric kettles and some hair dryers because of global warming concerns. And that a butcher shop in the UK immediately began selling meat in pounds and ounces after the exit vote. These things sound silly, but many people are tired of bureaucrats in far away places making these types of decisions that affect most people's lives daily, but have no real discernible benefit to them. The ruling class or elites, whatever you want to call them, seem to excel in making rules to show how enlightened they are. It's a form of virtue signaling. Meanwhile, real problems go unresolved. It's what happens when the people in power forget they are servants of the people, not masters.
But that's not going to happen. Cameron has already said, and not unreasonably, that the negotiations will be done by the next Prime Minister.
You Brexit; you bought it.
Quote:
...from London versus Brussels, is that they get to vote for the guys passing down the laws from London. This is from five years ago, long before the refugee crisis - ( New Window )
Exactly. And the overbearing regulations. I've just read in the past few days that the EU is talking about banning electric kettles and some hair dryers because of global warming concerns. And that a butcher shop in the UK immediately began selling meat in pounds and ounces after the exit vote. These things sound silly, but many people are tired of bureaucrats in far away places making these types of decisions that affect most people's lives daily, but have no real discernible benefit to them. The ruling class or elites, whatever you want to call them, seem to excel in making rules to show how enlightened they are. It's a form of virtue signaling. Meanwhile, real problems go unresolved. It's what happens when the people in power forget they are servants of the people, not masters.
Global warming is a real problem.
Take a scroll through this - really sad. - ( New Window )
This is much ado about nothing. England is not cutting it's phone lines nor closing its internet nor closing its factories, farms,banks nor ports. The clamor is from those with a vested interest losing a layer of their protection.
The dirty secret of socialism is that it protects the haves, not the have nots
The dirty secret of socialism is that it protects the haves, not the have nots
False. Neither socialism nor capitalism protect the have or the have nots. You are confusing the theoretical economic system with past and current "Socialist" countries. Power structures in place tend to protect the haves. It is just a fundamental, observable reality. Goes back to pre-history. But it is not the economic systems that drive that. It is the essence of politics.
BRAVO!!!!!
You make an interesting point, but before I agree or disagree, what is you IQ?
Quote:
a majority vote (and not really a razor-thin one either - nearly 4% of the vote) against your specific voting preference, is to assail the IQ of the voters with whom you disagree, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Full stop.
You make an interesting point, but before I agree or disagree, what is you IQ?
Eleventeen.
Also, only three of 35 areas where more than half of residents had a degree voted to leave the EU.
What is "No education" on the Y-axis?
There's nothing undemocratic about a revote. You have a process for referendums. What's undemocratic about following the process in the constitution?
"Sorry, we already voted on that. The issue has been decided...forever?"
Quote:
While I can't speak to IQ, there is some correlation between wanting to leave the EU and level of education. Less educated areas voted to leave. That much is fact.
What is "No education" on the Y-axis?
Not going to University.
Quote:
While I can't speak to IQ, there is some correlation between wanting to leave the EU and level of education. Less educated areas voted to leave. That much is fact.
Also, only three of 35 areas where more than half of residents had a degree voted to leave the EU.
What's missing from your analysis is whether people voting leave, regardless of IQ, voted in their own self interest. Obviously, workers in The City were perfectly happy with the status quo. Financial services were clearly a beneficiary of membership. They are also predominately highly educated. But what if you resided and were employed in a factory town adversely affected by Brussels micromanagement? Is the basis of their vote a low IQ, or self interest?
You can go through and argue the benefits vs. the detriments in the various locations in the UK. People will likely reach varied conclusions. But to ipso facto attribute this simply to IQ begs any sort analysis and looks like simple snobbery and condescension.
Fuck those Mexican Chinese stealing our jerbs. They work for the illuminati lizard people and their New World Order. Something about the Rockefellers. A trade war is a good start. So long as my individual state supports it, you know states rights and all that stuff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36650014
2. Shared more of the benefits of EU membership with the idiots
And LOL at the irony of AP's posts...
To me, 'No Education' = .000001 of the British population.
If it truly is referring to % holding college degrees, why wouldn't they put that as the Axis Title?
I love raw data, love statistics, HATE MISLEADS.
Screw the metric system and it's simplicity. Don't tread on my archaic measurement system.
Quote:
Thank the heavens butchers can now sell meat in pounds and ounces. Crisis averted.
Screw the metric system and it's simplicity. Don't tread on my archaic measurement system.
Keep your government's hands off my freedom ounces!
Quote:
Well if you believe owning property should be a requirement to vote I would exclude you for being a moron. A person could have a 7 figure income with multiple rentals and be taxed though the butt. They don't get a vote? You should move to Mississippi.
Moron has been defined as an IQ of 50-70. I have been tested at 85 so I am not a moron.
Nice try, but you dont add the scores of your three tests. This isnt cumulative.
Do you think AP's insinuations that those Brits who voted to leave are simpletons worthy of debate?
I don't. I think neither buford or AP bring anything to the table in these discussions other than to conflate and drive the conversations off track. Imho, let's plow their shit out of the way and move on with the discussion.
To me, 'No Education' = .000001 of the British population.
If it truly is referring to % holding college degrees, why wouldn't they put that as the Axis Title?
I love raw data, love statistics, HATE MISLEADS.
I was citing this article:
EU referendum: How the results compare to the UK's educated, old and immigrant populations - ( New Window )
Some on the other side decided the entire BREXIT vote was actually about states rights and personal freedoms. It was a very American centric take on the real situation. Throw in the global elite conspiracy to tie it all together.
At this stage of the thread it is much more entertaining to post over the top memes of the extremists on each side.
You celebrate the result of a referendum this time, in this instance. Great. Consider the forest for the trees.
- James Madison.
I am sympathetic to many of the gripes of the Leavers. We all should be. But their cause is glaringly a "partial consideration".
--
A recent competent and intelligent candidate, in a blatant and silly appeal to the exciteable masses, said he would label China a currency manipulator on day 1 in office. A pledge that would undoubtedly have disintegrated once he took office and confronted reality. I suspect a nat'l referendum, slave to partial considerations by the unaccountable, deciding the issue would be something like 80/20 for (likely conservative). Which would do wonders for Sino-American relations and thus the larger world order.
It seems that some of the youth believe that we must 'progress' towards 'the project' of a pan-national state with a centralized government otherwise 'regress' to nationalISM.
Which is just silly nonsense, since neither Britain nor the USA ever went full nationalIST, for example, and yet the pan national experiment (E.U.) ended up being less democratic than the individual states were.
So, very possibly, its Farage that is the true anti-nationalist, not the E.U. and its apologists, hiding behind pan nationalism and all that.
Perhaps because they are the ones who are being left behind by this new world order. They may not have the education credentials of the toffs, but they know when they are getting screwed.
We are already in a trade war with China.
Do you think AP's insinuations that those Brits who voted to leave are simpletons worthy of debate?
I don't. I think neither buford or AP bring anything to the table in these discussions other than to conflate and drive the conversations off track. Imho, let's plow their shit out of the way and move on with the discussion.
The irony of you complaint about the discussion being driven off track is quite hysterical.
The point about the butcher being able to sell in pounds and ounces is that before he wasn't allowed to legally. Do you think THAT is something that should be decided on that huge of a level. The point is the micro management of the EU and the cost of that. It's the same here in the US with the cost of over-regulation which drives businesses out of the US.
I can smell the smug through my monitor.
Quote:
Do you believe whether a butcher uses the Imperial or metric system in scaling his wares is topic worthy of discussion? Is it a root cause of Brexit? Will it make lives easier for Brits?
Do you think AP's insinuations that those Brits who voted to leave are simpletons worthy of debate?
I don't. I think neither buford or AP bring anything to the table in these discussions other than to conflate and drive the conversations off track. Imho, let's plow their shit out of the way and move on with the discussion.
The irony of you complaint about the discussion being driven off track is quite hysterical.
The point about the butcher being able to sell in pounds and ounces is that before he wasn't allowed to legally. Do you think THAT is something that should be decided on that huge of a level. The point is the micro management of the EU and the cost of that. It's the same here in the US with the cost of over-regulation which drives businesses out of the US.
You think over regulation is driving businesses out of the states? Anything to back it up that isnt a Facebook meme?
I would say tax structure more than anything else as far as sending business overseas.
I would say over regulation hurts mains street as big business can absorb those costs and pass it on compared to mom and pops.
Quote:
In comment 13012676 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Do you believe whether a butcher uses the Imperial or metric system in scaling his wares is topic worthy of discussion? Is it a root cause of Brexit? Will it make lives easier for Brits?
Do you think AP's insinuations that those Brits who voted to leave are simpletons worthy of debate?
I don't. I think neither buford or AP bring anything to the table in these discussions other than to conflate and drive the conversations off track. Imho, let's plow their shit out of the way and move on with the discussion.
The irony of you complaint about the discussion being driven off track is quite hysterical.
The point about the butcher being able to sell in pounds and ounces is that before he wasn't allowed to legally. Do you think THAT is something that should be decided on that huge of a level. The point is the micro management of the EU and the cost of that. It's the same here in the US with the cost of over-regulation which drives businesses out of the US.
You think over regulation is driving businesses out of the states? Anything to back it up that isnt a Facebook meme?
Ask the Economist
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Do you believe whether a butcher uses the Imperial or metric system in scaling his wares is topic worthy of discussion? Is it a root cause of Brexit? Will it make lives easier for Brits?
Do you think AP's insinuations that those Brits who voted to leave are simpletons worthy of debate?
I don't. I think neither buford or AP bring anything to the table in these discussions other than to conflate and drive the conversations off track. Imho, let's plow their shit out of the way and move on with the discussion.
The irony of you complaint about the discussion being driven off track is quite hysterical.
The point about the butcher being able to sell in pounds and ounces is that before he wasn't allowed to legally. Do you think THAT is something that should be decided on that huge of a level. The point is the micro management of the EU and the cost of that. It's the same here in the US with the cost of over-regulation which drives businesses out of the US.
I don't mean to go off in a tangent but I have to ask. Can you be more specific and tell us in detail about some of these business that left American shores because of over regulation?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13013089 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 13012676 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Do you believe whether a butcher uses the Imperial or metric system in scaling his wares is topic worthy of discussion? Is it a root cause of Brexit? Will it make lives easier for Brits?
Do you think AP's insinuations that those Brits who voted to leave are simpletons worthy of debate?
I don't. I think neither buford or AP bring anything to the table in these discussions other than to conflate and drive the conversations off track. Imho, let's plow their shit out of the way and move on with the discussion.
The irony of you complaint about the discussion being driven off track is quite hysterical.
The point about the butcher being able to sell in pounds and ounces is that before he wasn't allowed to legally. Do you think THAT is something that should be decided on that huge of a level. The point is the micro management of the EU and the cost of that. It's the same here in the US with the cost of over-regulation which drives businesses out of the US.
You think over regulation is driving businesses out of the states? Anything to back it up that isnt a Facebook meme?
Ask the Economist Link - ( New Window )
Where in the article was there evidence that companies were leaving America because of over regulation? It's possible I missed it.
Why do you insist on wasting our time?
Quote:
In comment 13012676 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Do you believe whether a butcher uses the Imperial or metric system in scaling his wares is topic worthy of discussion? Is it a root cause of Brexit? Will it make lives easier for Brits?
Do you think AP's insinuations that those Brits who voted to leave are simpletons worthy of debate?
I don't. I think neither buford or AP bring anything to the table in these discussions other than to conflate and drive the conversations off track. Imho, let's plow their shit out of the way and move on with the discussion.
The irony of you complaint about the discussion being driven off track is quite hysterical.
The point about the butcher being able to sell in pounds and ounces is that before he wasn't allowed to legally. Do you think THAT is something that should be decided on that huge of a level. The point is the micro management of the EU and the cost of that. It's the same here in the US with the cost of over-regulation which drives businesses out of the US.
I don't mean to go off in a tangent but I have to ask. Can you be more specific and tell us in detail about some of these business that left American shores because of over regulation?
Nah. Just waiting on your published thesis on why it isn't true.
Yeah, you're not meaning to go off on a tangent. If you weren't you wouldn't have posted.
Come now. A fast food restaurant? That's your shining example. That restaurant is not forsaking America for foreign shores. They are expanding. And since the American market is saturated with fast food joints, I would expect most of their investments would be overseas. No?
Quote:
In comment 13013089 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 13012676 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Do you believe whether a butcher uses the Imperial or metric system in scaling his wares is topic worthy of discussion? Is it a root cause of Brexit? Will it make lives easier for Brits?
Do you think AP's insinuations that those Brits who voted to leave are simpletons worthy of debate?
I don't. I think neither buford or AP bring anything to the table in these discussions other than to conflate and drive the conversations off track. Imho, let's plow their shit out of the way and move on with the discussion.
The irony of you complaint about the discussion being driven off track is quite hysterical.
The point about the butcher being able to sell in pounds and ounces is that before he wasn't allowed to legally. Do you think THAT is something that should be decided on that huge of a level. The point is the micro management of the EU and the cost of that. It's the same here in the US with the cost of over-regulation which drives businesses out of the US.
I don't mean to go off in a tangent but I have to ask. Can you be more specific and tell us in detail about some of these business that left American shores because of over regulation?
Nah. Just waiting on your published thesis on why it isn't true.
Yeah, you're not meaning to go off on a tangent. If you weren't you wouldn't have posted.
Come now. Don't get testy; it's unbecoming. I don't want to derail this thread. I think we have had a great discussion so far.
Buford stated that business is fleeing the US because of over regulation. This flies in the face of everything that's intuitive.
As compton mentioned, assuming regulation is in fact onerous, large businesses can absorbed the any cost and pass it on. Small businesses like family print shops and pizzarias aren't just going to pick up shop and relocate to Mexico.
We know the cause of jobs moving oversees and it isn't our job to disprove buford's silly assertions. The onus is on her.
Quote:
It would be overwhelmingly in favor of remaining. A lot of younger voters who would have voted to remain just didn't vote (sounds familiar) and they would in a second round of voting. Not to mention all of the people who are pining for a second vote... it's up to what, 3 million now? If even a chunk of those millions would be new voters, that would sway things even more. Plus the people who are caught up in the aftermath of this and seeing how the markets are reacting to it. They would vote to remain thinking it might fix things. Then you have numerous people coming out and admitting they didn't know all of this would happen just because they voted to leave. That they just got caught up in it and thought it wouldn't be that big of a deal (lol)
So yeah, remain would win in a landslide if it happened again.
It's also possible that some of the Remains would be sufficiently offended by the attempt to hold another fucking referendum because the powers that be didn't get the answer they wanted the first time and would vote to Leave.
I can smell the smug through my monitor.
I smelled sarcasm
Quote:
In comment 13013150 compton said:
Quote:
In comment 13013089 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 13012676 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Do you believe whether a butcher uses the Imperial or metric system in scaling his wares is topic worthy of discussion? Is it a root cause of Brexit? Will it make lives easier for Brits?
Do you think AP's insinuations that those Brits who voted to leave are simpletons worthy of debate?
I don't. I think neither buford or AP bring anything to the table in these discussions other than to conflate and drive the conversations off track. Imho, let's plow their shit out of the way and move on with the discussion.
The irony of you complaint about the discussion being driven off track is quite hysterical.
The point about the butcher being able to sell in pounds and ounces is that before he wasn't allowed to legally. Do you think THAT is something that should be decided on that huge of a level. The point is the micro management of the EU and the cost of that. It's the same here in the US with the cost of over-regulation which drives businesses out of the US.
I don't mean to go off in a tangent but I have to ask. Can you be more specific and tell us in detail about some of these business that left American shores because of over regulation?
Nah. Just waiting on your published thesis on why it isn't true.
Yeah, you're not meaning to go off on a tangent. If you weren't you wouldn't have posted.
Come now. Don't get testy; it's unbecoming. I don't want to derail this thread. I think we have had a great discussion so far.
Yeah, ok. I'm just asking what you are asking for. Who is being testy?
Fast food restaurants hire the under educated, unskilled workers that are demanding $15 an hour because the government decided the 30 hrs a week is now full time so they only get 29.
The regulation paperwork cost is growing out site. I'm not concerned with the Carl Jrs of the world. They will do what they need to survive. Including making overseas expansion a priority.
I go back to main street. The small business owner who doesn't have other options is who is being hurt.
You and I both know that is the backbone of the middle class.
But, they are far from the top reasons for businesses staying or fleeing. You don't think that IP protection is important? Local/regional/domestic labor laws? Costs of transportation and the local talent?
"but muh globalism!"
A majority just democratically voted to tell the EU to pound sand. Naturally those in favor of the status quo are salty.
Que sunglasses deal-with-it GIF.
Anyway... a someone who is 27, I do empathaize with the younger generation of voters who overwhelmingly voted to stay getting absolutely screwed by a bunch of older voters who have decided the future for them.
Sucks for the younger generation in the UK. Their future has been decided for them. They probably should have turned out in higher numbers.
Quote:
...from London versus Brussels, is that they get to vote for the guys passing down the laws from London. This is from five years ago, long before the refugee crisis - ( New Window )
Exactly. And the overbearing regulations. I've just read in the past few days that the EU is talking about banning electric kettles and some hair dryers because of global warming concerns. And that a butcher shop in the UK immediately began selling meat in pounds and ounces after the exit vote. These things sound silly, but many people are tired of bureaucrats in far away places making these types of decisions that affect most people's lives daily, but have no real discernible benefit to them. The ruling class or elites, whatever you want to call them, seem to excel in making rules to show how enlightened they are. It's a form of virtue signaling. Meanwhile, real problems go unresolved. It's what happens when the people in power forget they are servants of the people, not masters.
I get your point, but global warming restrictions rarely have tangible benefits to any one individual in the immediacy...
Does this mean "fuck 'em, who needs em!"?
Buford stated that business is fleeing the US because of over regulation. This flies in the face of everything that's intuitive.
As compton mentioned, assuming regulation is in fact onerous, large businesses can absorbed the any cost and pass it on. Small businesses like family print shops and pizzarias aren't just going to pick up shop and relocate to Mexico.
We know the cause of jobs moving oversees and it isn't our job to disprove buford's silly assertions. The onus is on her.
That's the easy way or the vindictive way if look at it that way.
And I agree. over regulation is more a main street problem than a wall street problem. Carl Jr's is a prime example, They just expand overseas and their stock will grow and everyone is happy except for those jobs lost on the lower end of the economic scale.
We'll just have to pick up that slack.
They find that there is no link.
"Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?"
Quote:
That isn't how this works.
Buford stated that business is fleeing the US because of over regulation. This flies in the face of everything that's intuitive.
As compton mentioned, assuming regulation is in fact onerous, large businesses can absorbed the any cost and pass it on. Small businesses like family print shops and pizzarias aren't just going to pick up shop and relocate to Mexico.
We know the cause of jobs moving oversees and it isn't our job to disprove buford's silly assertions. The onus is on her.
That's the easy way or the vindictive way if look at it that way.
And I agree. over regulation is more a main street problem than a wall street problem. Carl Jr's is a prime example, They just expand overseas and their stock will grow and everyone is happy except for those jobs lost on the lower end of the economic scale.
We'll just have to pick up that slack.
Carl Jr. isn't going to not open up more stores because the minimum wage went up if they feel there's there's profit to be made in expansion. It's counter-intuitive. They will expand anywhere and everywhere they can.
And either we're talking middle class jobs - historically manufacturing - or low end jobs, as you brought up in your Carl Jr. example.
Unfortunately for some, those manufacturing jobs are gone due to technology and cheaper labor costs overseas, and we haven't done a great job retraining or providing adequate opportunities for those workers to learn new skills to adapt to a new marketplace. Instead, some have found it more politically expedient to blame globalization, cheap imports (which we Americans love) rather than face hard realities.
What remains of the middle class have faced stagnant wages while companies sit on massive reserves due to uncertainty.
None of this, of course, has anything to due with regulation. But it won't stop those like buford from continuing to kick straw men.
Quote:
That isn't how this works.
Buford stated that business is fleeing the US because of over regulation. This flies in the face of everything that's intuitive.
As compton mentioned, assuming regulation is in fact onerous, large businesses can absorbed the any cost and pass it on. Small businesses like family print shops and pizzarias aren't just going to pick up shop and relocate to Mexico.
We know the cause of jobs moving oversees and it isn't our job to disprove buford's silly assertions. The onus is on her.
That's the easy way or the vindictive way if look at it that way.
And I agree. over regulation is more a main street problem than a wall street problem. Carl Jr's is a prime example, They just expand overseas and their stock will grow and everyone is happy except for those jobs lost on the lower end of the economic scale.
We'll just have to pick up that slack.
It's not one or the other. Carl Jr. is not facing a dilemma of if they open a restaurant in America then they can't open one overseas. The factors that influence these investment decisions can't be simply reduced to regulation. Canada and the EU have way more restrictive business regulation than the U.S; in spite of that, American companies (from fast food to hi-tech) are opening business there. I'm not interested in changing anyone mind. If you feel that business are fleeing America because of excessive regulation; more power to you.
I can smell the smug through my monitor.
That's just your fetid breath blowing back in your face.
I can smell the smug through my monitor.
"I'll enlighten you further when I finish my shift as a barista." :>)
Quote:
That isn't how this works.
Buford stated that business is fleeing the US because of over regulation. This flies in the face of everything that's intuitive.
As compton mentioned, assuming regulation is in fact onerous, large businesses can absorbed the any cost and pass it on. Small businesses like family print shops and pizzarias aren't just going to pick up shop and relocate to Mexico.
We know the cause of jobs moving oversees and it isn't our job to disprove buford's silly assertions. The onus is on her.
That's the easy way or the vindictive way if look at it that way.
And I agree. over regulation is more a main street problem than a wall street problem. Carl Jr's is a prime example, They just expand overseas and their stock will grow and everyone is happy except for those jobs lost on the lower end of the economic scale.
We'll just have to pick up that slack.
Or they get electronic kiosks to replace those workers. BTW, Obamacare and minimum wages are also regulations that cause companies to move jobs overseas. It's not just environmental regulations.
And the comments about 'so you don't want any regulations' are just silly. We are over regulated. Thousands of new regulations are passed each year. Someone who is in business can tell you that. But nothing will convince you if you don't want to believe it.
Quote:
In comment 13013166 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
That isn't how this works.
Buford stated that business is fleeing the US because of over regulation. This flies in the face of everything that's intuitive.
As compton mentioned, assuming regulation is in fact onerous, large businesses can absorbed the any cost and pass it on. Small businesses like family print shops and pizzarias aren't just going to pick up shop and relocate to Mexico.
We know the cause of jobs moving oversees and it isn't our job to disprove buford's silly assertions. The onus is on her.
That's the easy way or the vindictive way if look at it that way.
And I agree. over regulation is more a main street problem than a wall street problem. Carl Jr's is a prime example, They just expand overseas and their stock will grow and everyone is happy except for those jobs lost on the lower end of the economic scale.
We'll just have to pick up that slack.
Or they get electronic kiosks to replace those workers. BTW, Obamacare and minimum wages are also regulations that cause companies to move jobs overseas. It's not just environmental regulations.
And the comments about 'so you don't want any regulations' are just silly. We are over regulated. Thousands of new regulations are passed each year. Someone who is in business can tell you that. But nothing will convince you if you don't want to believe it.
Lack of free trade agreements also causes jobs to move overseas. One of the auto makers said it was moving some production to Mexico not because of wages but because the Mexican-made cars are cheaper to export than US-made cars because Mexico has more free trade agreements.
Here you go.
Link - ( New Window )
Access via Google - ( New Window )
Once posted, it came up pay/subscribe.
Thanks, learned something today.
That or idiots.
But realizing where it came from came from, you gotta cut some slack if you know what I mean. :)
I couldn't get past the WSJ paywall either, but a "nice read" from a former diplomat doesn't sound worth it
Reuters Business Verified account
@ReutersBiz
BREAKING: Britain's FTSE 100 index recovers all losses from Brexit
8:43 AM - 29 Jun 2016
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Reuters Business Verified account
@ReutersBiz
BREAKING: Britain's FTSE 100 index recovers all losses from Brexit
8:43 AM - 29 Jun 2016
Link - ( New Window )
It's the apocalypse, the world economy will halt. Only the elite lizard people will survive.
Quote:
Reuters Business Verified account
@ReutersBiz
BREAKING: Britain's FTSE 100 index recovers all losses from Brexit
8:43 AM - 29 Jun 2016
Link - ( New Window )
1) I read a few days ago that FTSE 100 is a bad measuring stick because so many of those businesses earn a ton outside Britain. Is Brexit really bad for drugmakers AZ and GSK? Their US subs are still selling the same product in dollars in the US market. FTSE 250 is more broad based. It had a 6/23 high of 17333, fell below 15000 on 6/27, and is now at 16002. So still impaired but bouncing back significantly.
2) The markets are a terrible way to gauge anything other than the markets. Especially in this era to too much capital with nothing (literally) to put it in. Because interest rates are so low, big investors are taking on a lot of risk with equities.
Quote:
In comment 13013181 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
In comment 13013166 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
That isn't how this works.
Buford stated that business is fleeing the US because of over regulation. This flies in the face of everything that's intuitive.
As compton mentioned, assuming regulation is in fact onerous, large businesses can absorbed the any cost and pass it on. Small businesses like family print shops and pizzarias aren't just going to pick up shop and relocate to Mexico.
We know the cause of jobs moving oversees and it isn't our job to disprove buford's silly assertions. The onus is on her.
That's the easy way or the vindictive way if look at it that way.
And I agree. over regulation is more a main street problem than a wall street problem. Carl Jr's is a prime example, They just expand overseas and their stock will grow and everyone is happy except for those jobs lost on the lower end of the economic scale.
We'll just have to pick up that slack.
Or they get electronic kiosks to replace those workers. BTW, Obamacare and minimum wages are also regulations that cause companies to move jobs overseas. It's not just environmental regulations.
And the comments about 'so you don't want any regulations' are just silly. We are over regulated. Thousands of new regulations are passed each year. Someone who is in business can tell you that. But nothing will convince you if you don't want to believe it.
Lack of free trade agreements also causes jobs to move overseas. One of the auto makers said it was moving some production to Mexico not because of wages but because the Mexican-made cars are cheaper to export than US-made cars because Mexico has more free trade agreements.
How about its because Mexican auto workers make $15 per DAY?