The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

pustal · Dec 27, 2018

Xzi said:
I wish man. Our markets are doing the death wobble, and as mentioned above, Europe's economy as a whole isn't looking too hot either. It's all tied together of course in obscure ways, but we're probably looking at a near-worldwide recession in 2019 or early 2020 at the latest. There are several economic 'bubbles' waiting to pop in the US as well, student loan debt being one of them. Not sure about abroad.

Abroad the US you have some localized housing bubbles, like in here, in our cities, and generally a lesser buying power, particular among younger people - even if it doesn't crash soon, it'll have a long term effect, as life savings are a thing at risk for future generations. The great economic crisis left a greater disparity between rich and poor, and the middle class is a dying breed, that's why you had the later protests in France recently. All this populism, the same that lead to Brexit, is giving power to ultracapitalists. The same tribalist narrative is the same anti-social narrative and it's helping dividing further the rich and the poor, even if concealed by populism supported by the lower classes. And the greed of the ones actually benefiting from this it's what we'll eventually cause bigger, long-lasting problems in the World economy.

mattytrog · Dec 27, 2018

Nightwish said:
A socialist government would protect workers, create jobs and fund public services while caring little for what debt peddlers parrot, so nope, not at all.

Fund public services? How? Where's the money coming from? Taxes rises? Increasing Business rates?

That's why so many companies have left the UK. They are too high already. So the company leaves UK due to spiralling costs. Workers lose their jobs, government loses all the money they get from that firm. So you have less to fund public services.

They still keep tariff free access to our market thanks to the single market. Customs are not an issue due to the customs Union.

Neoliberal policies have decimated our high streets. Low rates for charity shops, pedestrianisation of town centres loses passing trade.

Yes. Liberalism and socialism has worked out brilliantly for this country thus far.

Workers rights are only good if there is a firm there to work for in the first place.

FAST6191 · Dec 27, 2018

Making town centre (or centres in some cases) streets pedestrian only happened decades and decades ago for most places I have ever been, certainly any kind of big urban centre and I have stayed at reasonable length or repeatedly visited most places of note on that front in the UK. They were fine all through the 90s and early 2000s and I have never seen anybody make a correlation between failures of location and time from making things pedestrian friendly. Anecdotally I would also say most places I have ever seen with motorised side streets fare far worse, and when bus routes are knocked out of those it gets worse still.
I would place more blame at high streets not reacting to supermarkets diversifying, the rise of big box locations in former industrial parks (or in some cases newly constructed out of town retail parks) and also failing to meet the internet, and probably the lack of any cheap/free parking (NCP was a niche thing through the 90s in said same places, today they are ubiquitous). Certainly there are problems with rates (I especially like the thing where they give nice teaser rates and massively jack it up a year or so later) and some other bonehead policies but the overwhelming majority of issues come back to the previous things. Back on the internet look at what is still standing that is not a charity shop or coffee shop and tell me which of those don't do online in a big way? Even those two concepts embrace online quite well, even hairdressers that mainly service their given estate do online.

notimp · Dec 28, 2018

Wow. Great discussion unfolding.

The EU has about as much strategy as May: fuck all, hail financial capital. Where's the growth? Where's the plan to save crumbling countries like Greece and Latvia? What's the plan for the 20% average unemployed youth? How are the climate agreement goals going? What about the ongoing, illegal QE that doesn't fit into the economic basis of those plans? Why does infrastructure like bridges and railway keep crumbling from lack of maintenance? When can I get a CT scan in a public hospital in less than four months? When does the stupid structural deficit start making any sense? What's the plan to deal with rulers who control the media and censor the internet?

Plan to fix Greece and Latvia. There is none. Basically because of Italy and Spain, or because of Germany - depending on how you want to see it.

Have open markets and free money flow, and a global crisis, and no one with any idea how to bootstrap the next economy really - and you have all money ending up in Germany - while the other countries can only get more "competitive" by lowering wages. Ups design mistake?

Or - have Italys and Spains economies on the brink of collapsing as well - and do some basic forcasting on what happens, if you help out Greece and Latvia better. Choose one depending on you political standing.

The "Greeces economy is growing" argument doesnt fly imho - because you can always wrek a countries GDP, then tell everyone five years down the road, hey, its growing again. The issue is the economical design of the union and everyone knows it.

But - from the "international trade and economics" logics perspective, what the EU does currently makes nothing but sense. It even mitigates the immigration crisis, to have countries in the south really not that well off, but thats cynical as well.

Long story short - no one wants to confront the people with money, because everyone is so afraid of them taking their money and leaving to places like New Zealand, which especially the tech elite is entirely capable of.

Or because that never happend in history ever. Pick one..

QE isnt so much illegal, as its something everyone does - because economics doesnt work like they taught you in university.

But you have to look at its effects. It keeps markets stable (if you get it right), at the "cost" of everyone equally, while ideally fostering entrepreneurship (which isnt happening

) - while prolonging current structures, that might not work for everyone. If you get it right. So you could see that as unfair as well - depending if you have all the money, or you dont..

If you get it wrong - you can destroy your country, or the European union. Also within one monetary union you have to do it following one strategy - that ideally isnt Greeces, or Italys.

But now - Great Britain didnt exactly leave, because they wanted to effectively devalue the pound towards the Euro.

So that made no sense here.

Infrastructure is fine mostly == another infrastructure program is NOT the solution. (State puts money into infrastructure projects - everyone so amazed that they can now have better commerce for free (*look at them paved roads*), that they start investing as well) If it were - people would have done that already.

CT scans - populist argument. Make your doctors prescribe less of them - problem solved.

When will structural deficit make sense? Never. Its a power politics gambit. The goal always is not having to restart the entire monetary system after yet another crash.

You are selling trust to people that are dumber than you are - but because you do - stuff actually works out.

How to deal with Orban? - Thats actually more of a question regarding how to deal with outside influence (Russia, China, ...). For the people there - eh, they are effed as well. They voted out democracy. No sympathies there. Make sure it doesnt spread, by telling everyone how dumb they were. Hit international politicians on their fingers, do some power plays. Keep talking to everyone. (Not really that big of a problem either.)

//

The EU and the international fund is what provided our country a possibility to escape the economic crisis and to have some growth at the moment. Greece GDP is in growth as well. Greece benefited the same lending hand as we had, although with the aggravated issue of smoking it's accounts. Youth unemployed is decreasing in Portugal since 2013. All Europe signed the Paris agreement that implicates legal binding to the goals.

They "keep us afloat" prolonging what is - kind of argument. People already see the economic stagnation - and they dont like it one bit. Setting Greece back onto a growth path wasnt a great feat, Paris wasnt a great feat, unemployment is growing (quick invent some jobs), trying to make france "more like germany" just failed spectacularly... I'm just counting the years until I start voting in right wing governments, really..

The EU is what has been stopping greater corruption in governments.

At the expense of making Brussel the most corrupt place within the EU. No - wrong argument. Right argument is - corruption is actually good. It helps politicians write legal texts, and keeps them in touch with who's popular right now. But dont let it seep into lower levels of bureaucracy, or transaction cost for businesses gets so high, that you kill your economy.

People giving money for legislature is still very much a thing, and even "wanted".

If Jan Philipp Albrecht is too successful at the european stage, quickly - give him a higher paying job in the german government, where he can count cows, or something..

edit: Oh, forgot the "censor the internet" thing. Every politician. In the world. Wants to control the populus. End of argument. (Chinas "new facebook based social control" is just "polling people 2.0"

)

Costello · Dec 28, 2018

I say let them leave the EU, no second referendum.
Five or ten years from now - see are they better off? If so, then everyone's happy.

But if they're worse off then let them have another vote about rejoining the EU. If they can acknowledge their mistake then I would say welcome home. We still love you UK.

notimp · Dec 28, 2018

Costello said:
I say let them leave the EU, no second referendum.
Five or ten years from now - see are they better off? If so, then everyone's happy.

But if they're worse off then let them have another vote about rejoining the EU. If they can acknowledge their mistake then I would say welcome home. We still love you UK.

Basically. If you think, that what people want matters.

But hey, It does. They actually left the European Union.

edit: If you can understand a good joke, and do understand german (because the clip is in german) - this is actually a MUCH better allegory of how politics works:
click

It has everything in it. Ambition, conservative social structures, populism, public image, intelligence, tradition, chance, ...

Xzi · Dec 28, 2018

Costello said:
I say let them leave the EU, no second referendum.
Five or ten years from now - see are they better off? If so, then everyone's happy.

But if they're worse off then let them have another vote about rejoining the EU. If they can acknowledge their mistake then I would say welcome home. We still love you UK.

That might be what it takes to get them to realize their folly, but obviously plenty of people within the UK started having regrets almost immediately after the vote passed. If more people come out for a second vote than the first, I don't see a good reason why the results should be ignored or dismissed. There was a lot of foreign manipulation surrounding the first vote, after all.

notimp · Dec 28, 2018

Not how this works. People usually dont regret votes, and realize things, and then change their minds and become better people...

The UK experienced legal inner EU migration of cheap labor, which their political constituencies were all like "they taking my jobs!" about. They had limited exposure to the actual migrant flows (because they control the channel, and most of those people actually wanted to go to germany) - still, this was enough for an ever aging demographic to go like "this is not the Britain I want to grow old in" - and decide that they had to separate from the EU - because, some interest groups told them, that then they could then - well I dont know exactly what, but probably have their houses built by true brits, like they were in the past.

All in all it was a lets bring back them old days revival with populist politicians, and whatever truly local industries the UK has left. (Tourism in the rain? Commemorative plate printing?)

Regardless - its spilled wine.

People make up new stories to complement their decisions. There is no going back. In that sense its really a "lets see how this works out in five, more likely ten years from now" deal.

But for the currently younger generation, they can grow older with the happy notion, that mostly older people did that to them, because they didn't want for Britain to change too much.

Economically I don't see them being benefited by this in any way - but hey, they also are a military factor, and .. well, thats about it. Well and english still being an operating language within the EU now that its not the native language of any country within it - being a little odd - but thats just flavor..

edit: If you had any questions, THIS is what this was all about:
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1078206349148708865?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1078206349148708865

Xzi · Dec 28, 2018

notimp said:
Not how this works. People usually dont regret votes, and realize things, and then change their minds and become better people...

Of course some people regretted their votes. More than that, I'm sure a good portion of people who didn't vote regretted it. It's a big decision to make without taking as many opinions into account as possible, and at the time, I don't think many people in the UK were aware of just how deeply it would impact their lives.

notimp · Dec 28, 2018

On an individual basis I guess yes.

But people didnt regret, that they werent informing themselves before casting their votes? Or did they, and does that make it better? Maybe its just that its "opportune" for a certain political orientation to say, that they regret the decision, so its now popular for people to voice that notion as well. It hurts no one, you cant change it after the fact. So I guess everyone can subscribe to a medium dose of self pitty after the thing's done, why not.

Either people made an entirely nonsensical, voting decision based on a probably racist (more than nationalistic, actually) sentiment - in which case, where does the regret fit there? Sorry we so nationalist?

Or people voted because they didnt inform themselves sufficiently before the fact, in which case. Regret of what? You not informing yourselves, before voting?

I have to say in this specific case I actually have more respect for the hardliners - that actually stick by their conviction and carry it through.

You can't have a second election, without people starting to question the democratic process in a way that wont be healthy if they start doing it, for at least ten years. National elections arent a game. Or something where you mistakingly make an uninformed decision. At least not in concept. Not even participational democracy allows for that in principal..

No one cares about we so sorry, or 30k people on the streets in London weaving EU flags. London doesnt represent the country at large. Its done. Carry it with distinction (the thing thats not quite pride, but people can still look at you and say - yes, they'll make the best of it).

Nightwish · Dec 31, 2018

pustal said:
The EU and the international fund is what provided our country a possibility to escape the economic crisis and to have some growth at the moment. Greece GDP is in growth as well. Greece benefited the same lending hand as we had, although with the aggravated issue of smoking it's accounts.

At the end of three decades of EU-mandated de-industrialization, it's not sustainable. The portuguese right is not wrong in pointing out that there are many small changes that will bring the full might of austerity again - oil price increases, foreign economic crisis, end of QE, housing bubble collapse, problems with our foreign owned monopolies, a terrorist attack or natural disaster killing tourism - but they're incredibly wrong in thinking that not having increased demand wouldn't be much worse.
And, as notimp said, after collapsing the economy, minor growth isn't exactly a feat. Both countries still need decades worth of surplus, which never happened anywhere, let alone on a country that needs imports to grow. The IMF knows the disaster the european austerity was, but it still insists that it was good because... err... if fits their textbooks.

Youth unemployed is decreasing in Portugal since 2013. All Europe signed the Paris agreement that implicates legal binding to the goals.

Again, after collapsing it and losing a lot of the top tier, we're still throwing two digits to a life of precarity - hardly impressive or sustainable.
The Paris agreement will not be met because there is no investment. At best, it will improve because people will have less and less money for energy.

The EU is what has been stopping greater corruption in governments.

The whole EU is a revolving door between government and finance, lest we forget the likes of Barroso or that there will never be a control of tax heavens nor cum-ex type schemes. The european funds are usually entangled in schemes because they're a convenient way to entice rulers to promote Europe, I'd say.

I can get a CT scan almost for free any day at a public hospial if it is an urgency.

Well, I suppose early-ish pancreatic cancer isn't an urgency, because the person I know who died in the São João hospital met quite a few people who didn't have it either for 4 months. Or any effective treatment, for that matter.

Also what rulers do we have that control the media?

I obviously meant Poland and Hungary, for now - some rules are more important than others. With the hysteria about social media, while having a point, is likely to lead to bad PATRIOT ACT-style censorship laws as well.

mattytrog said:
Fund public services? How? Where's the money coming from? Taxes rises?

From the same place the rest of fiat money comes from, from the central's banks computers. While there are limits, they are on real resources, not on sovereign currency. After all, MEFO, war bonds and IOUs for the industrialization of Britain didn't bankrupt anyone. "But Zimbabwe and Venezuela!" - lack of essential resources, not money. "But petrodollars!" - trickier, make sure you sell stuff that eventually gets you dollars... like renewables that get you less and less dependent. I didn't way it was trivial.

notimp said:
QE isnt so much illegal, as its something everyone does - because economics doesnt work like they taught you in university.

It's illegal in the Eurozone, though. It clearly doesn't work like the textbooks, there was no inflation whatsoever and Japan isn't going broke anytime soon - and still, creating money (always and by itself) is the boogeyman, for reasons.

notimp said:
Infrastructure is fine mostly == another infrastructure program is NOT the solution.

It's a big part of it, because something needs to pull demand up and real unemployment down. And you can only ignore the cost rise of crumbling bridges for so long.

pustal · Dec 31, 2018

Nightwish said:
At the end of three decades of EU-mandated de-industrialization, it's not sustainable.

What the hell are you talking about? there is no such thing as a "EU-mandated de-industrialization". Portugal industry reduced because it became obsolee and uncompetitive.

Nightwish said:
The portuguese right is not wrong in pointing out that there are many small changes that will bring the full might of austerity again - oil price increases, foreign economic crisis, end of QE, housing bubble collapse, problems with our foreign owned monopolies, a terrorist attack or natural disaster killing tourism - but they're incredibly wrong in thinking that not having increased demand wouldn't be much worse.

What "portuguese right"? We have no righ-wing parlamentary representative parties. Are you talking about social democrats or those loonies at PNR? Or do you even live in this country? If you are talking about social democrats, they are pro-EU, they complied with the economic rescue and built a positive relationship with the EU.

Nightwish said:
And, as notimp said, after collapsing the economy, minor growth isn't exactly a feat. Both countries still need decades worth of surplus, which never happened anywhere, let alone on a country that needs imports to grow. The IMF knows the disaster the european austerity was, but it still insists that it was good because... err... if fits their textbooks.

The IMF lent us money when we needed and expects return just like any bank. There are no ultirior motives, that's how it works, so they can be here the next time we need them. Without having accepted the rescue, we'd be sunk much deeper on, with no money to pay pensions and people starving. And the EU had no fault in it, just a combination of the internatinal crisis with national corrupt polititians policies.

Nightwish said:
Again, after collapsing it and losing a lot of the top tier, we're still throwing two digits to a life of precarity - hardly impressive or sustainable.
The Paris agreement will not be met because there is no investment. At best, it will improve because people will have less and less money for energy.

Again, what the hell are you talking about. What investment is there to do? More than 58% energy produced in our country comes from renewal sources and almost 30% if not more now (last values are from 2016) of consumption is from said sources. We invested plenty and have been collecting the rewards. Most of that infraestructure comes from the EU.

Nightwish said:
The whole EU is a revolving door between government and finance, lest we forget the likes of Barroso or that there will never be a control of tax heavens nor cum-ex type schemes. The european funds are usually entangled in schemes because they're a convenient way to entice rulers to promote Europe, I'd say.

Again, what are you talking about? The only schemes there are created by who receives them - i.e. us. The funds are only as efficient as the gonerment that receives them. And we can see both examples of effiencency and unneficiency in or country, as energy and aggriculture, respectivelly. The EU provides the money, or a percentage of it, the country manages it.

Nightwish said:
Well, I suppose early-ish pancreatic cancer isn't an urgency, because the person I know who died in the São João hospital met quite a few people who didn't have it either for 4 months. Or any effective treatment, for that matter.

I know a quite few people who have the oncology assistant they need. Either you are telling me a negligency case or something is missing. Speaking o São João hospital, in this coming year they will receive improvements in the oncology section with a new area. I wonder who will help funding this contruction...

Nightwish said:
I obviously meant Poland and Hungary, for now - some rules are more important than others. With the hysteria about social media, while having a point, is likely to lead to bad PATRIOT ACT-style censorship laws as well.

Quite on the contrary, the EU Charter of Basic Rights protects freedom of information and things like Hungary’s media law package goes against it. Without the EU, violations to those freedoms are much more likely to happen.

notimp · Dec 31, 2018

Nightwish said:
It's illegal in the Eurozone, though. It clearly doesn't work like the textbooks, there was no inflation whatsoever and Japan isn't going broke anytime soon - and still, creating money (always and by itself) is the boogeyman, for reasons.

I grouped this in with QE, maybe wrongly so - but, not necessarily..

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omt/html/index.en.html

Those assets they are purchasing, they keep. Indefinitely.

They just "vanish" from the market.

The funny thing about the "max level of debt is at 90% of gdp" meme is, that it was proven mathematically incorrect by economics students. The professor famous for this theory did "user error in excel sheet" to be able to come up with that value.

(see: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html )

Japan (250% of GDP debt) is a very special case though. They are basically acting like a sect.

They have public wealth within the country, that is at no risk of leaving into other countries (the thing we are afraid the wealthy people will do, when you target them to lessen the inequality gap), because in Japan, thats just not something you do. Same with their businesses - they buy up other japanese businesses, when they are at risk of defaulting, and just take the hit. They are not acting like "homo economicus" or even "only partly rationlal actors" - they are acting like the japanese.

Nightwish said:
It's a big part of it, because something needs to pull demand up and real unemployment down.

No one thinks, that investment will shoot back in, if you do infrastructure projects within the EU again. We already get same day amazon delivery.

People are more intelligent than that already. Sadly.

State would invest, nothing would happen.

Those are all schemes to get the ball rolling again, and make people with money invest. But for the last lets say 30 years, all the new wealth created was done so through "virtual efficiency schemes" (closely related to "you take money for nothing" (f.e. transaction efficiencies, that dont produce things, or work)), so I'd say those people know that they are running scams (once market leader, you basically have 0 operational costs

) and are perfectly capable of just "clinking out" when they realize, that the band stops to play. So the band never can stop to play.

We have to invent new schemes, basically. Imho. Green economy is one. ("Here spend money on high risk, low return stuff - feel better about yourselves". Not that this cant work, it can - but usually those long term high risk R&D investments where driven by state funds, and not private wealth.)

notimp · Dec 31, 2018

pustal said:
The IMF lent us money when we needed and expects return just like any bank.

Aha ha ha - ha ha - good one.

Sorry, cynicism.
IMF and the World Bank are political instruments.
(see: https://newrepublic.com/article/91249/imf-lagarde-france (didnt vet the source, first thing that came up in google))
So is china giving countries free loans, and taking over their harbors for 200 years in return, btw.

edit: While looking at the source above, i stumbled over the following article:
https://newrepublic.com/article/152809/dickensian-tragedy-britains-growing-poverty Merry christmas.

pustal · Dec 31, 2018

notimp said:
Aha ha ha - ha ha - good one. Sorry, cynicism.
IMF and the World Bank are political instruments.
(see: https://newrepublic.com/article/91249/imf-lagarde-france (didnt vet the source, first thing that came up in google))
So is china giving countries free loans, and taking over their harbors for 200 years in return, btw.

edit: While looking at the source above, i stumbled over the following article:
https://newrepublic.com/article/152809/dickensian-tragedy-britains-growing-poverty Merry christmas.

I am not sure you read the articles, but for the first one I fail to see how it is implied to be political instruments, rather there being a 'nepotistic' set of nominations.

And for the second, I fail to see you point altogether. For whatever monetary supports the EU provides, it is always the responsibility of the receiving government its management. If the management is faulty, it is not the EU fault.

Btw, you might want to take a look at the EU funding on the UK and where it'll lose out.

notimp · Dec 31, 2018

No.

The same as with the interference the chinese run with their economic policies, the countries loose all sovereignty, when it comes to economic decision making, which is all decision making. It usually is time limited until certain conditions are met, but you can stretch that however you need it.

Countries under the IMF aegis, for example are forced to sell state assets, or make contracts concerning certain investments, that they cant deny.

We are oversimplifying concepts here - and for that purpose it is important to know, that the IMF or the World Bank are not "normal banks", but rather political actors with credit lines.

pustal · Dec 31, 2018

notimp said:
No.

The same as with the interference the chinese run with their economic policies, the countries loose all sovereignty, when it comes to economic decision making, which is all decision making. It usually is time limited until certain conditions are met, but you can stretch that however you need it.

Well yeah. You ask for money to get back on your feet and in return you pledge to make sure you pay back, and they supervise that. The point is to save you when you need but that you avoid the need and use it as last resource. If you need the help, you most likely screwed up at some level and they want to make sure you don't screw again with their money at least. They have to make sure they are there the next time someone needs aid, and for that, they have to make sure you pay your debt. You can't go to the bank and ask for a loan and not expecting to be consequences battached, you get yourself in a loanl debt , you lose financial freedom.

notimp said:
We are oversimplifying concepts here - and for that purpose it is important to know, that the IMF or the World Bank are not "normal banks", but rather political actors with credit lines.

They are not normal banks, for sure. But political in what way?

notimp · Jan 5, 2019

pustal said:
They are not normal banks, for sure. But political in what way?

When they give you money, they take over your national politics. They tell you what assets to sell, what social programs to cut, not to spend money on education or health, to sell to consortiums that might have similar political backgrounds, they also tell you what your annual rate of growth should be, and what your tax levels should look like.

In essence - if you are going with them - you are f*cked.

Normally you "get out" of their "care" after you are on a growth path again - and the actual market will start lending you (as a state) money again. But there are the "non normal" cases as well - where their "prescription" tanked economies for decades, and they kept on ruling..

Also there are those cases, where people insist, that they've done that on purpose - to essentially keep certain countries in check through dependency (wikipedia: economic hitman), by first making sure - that you would get a loan from them you might not have needed...

Usually they are a bit more civil with western countries though.

They are what you would call a "lender of last resort".

Also, political in the sense, that they are founded on actual political agreements and staffed following political criteria.

But, but - I can not vote people in there in or out! Exactly. Kind of the point.

Nightwish · Jan 10, 2019

pustal said:
What the hell are you talking about? there is no such thing as a "EU-mandated de-industrialization". Portugal industry reduced because it became obsolee and uncompetitive.

You know, one of the conditions to join the Euro. It was so unprofitable parts were sold off and eventually taken elsewhere.

What "portuguese right"? We have no righ-wing parlamentary representative parties.

Yes, we have no parties who cut workers rights, privatize essential services, create private-public partnerships and love regressive taxes and inequality, I must've been dreaming. /s

The IMF lent us money when we needed and expects return just like any bank. There are no ultirior motives, that's how it works,

"Any bank" doesn't make demands for unconstitutional polity and eternal dependence. The lack of any variation or any learning from outcomes speaks to the real motives.

And the EU had no fault in it, just a combination of the internatinal crisis with national corrupt polititians policies.

The EU made the worse demands while complying with none of the requisites of a common currency area. The EU makes it worse every day by ignoring the treaty violations of Germany, France and the Netherlands. The EU makes the IMF look like socialists.
I would also advise you to look at where the deficit came from.

Again, what the hell are you talking about. What investment is there to do? More than 58% energy produced in our country comes from renewal sources and almost 30% if not more now

You know the Paris agreement doesn't revolve around Portugal, right? Even then, there's more to it than the most expensive electricity production of Europe. And exporting people.
Plenty of other countries will not be able do it in the age of austerity, as Macron found out.

Again, what are you talking about? The only schemes there are created by who receives them - i.e. us.

By the fact that it's the one item the EU doesn't give a fuck about how it's spent, anywhere. They know what's going to happen, and as long as DB profits, it's all good.

Speaking o São João hospital, in this coming year they will receive improvements in the oncology section with a new area.

I'd tell him the good news, but, you know...

Quite on the contrary, the EU Charter of Basic Rights protects freedom of information and things like Hungary’s media law package goes against it.

And everyone's fine with it, as long as he provides a surplus for the northern banks. Same with worker rights, really.

notimp said:
They are not acting like "homo economicus" or even "only partly rationlal actors" - they are acting like the japanese.

That doesn't fit any economic theory and is not believable in a game theory world. At the very least, they should still be terrified if they thought it was an issue, and yet... nothingness.

notimp said:
No one thinks, that investment will shoot back in, if you do infrastructure projects within the EU again. We already get same day amazon delivery.

And less and less people buying quality products. Actually, Amazon does take less time, everything else seems to take longer, but anecdotes will be anecdotes.
Regardless, roads get old, bridges crumble, woods need clearing and older people need to be taken care of if you expect anyone to have money to keep consuming - which, surprise, they are starting to stop doing.
If you think permanent austerity and ever increasing precarity mandated by monetarism is sustainable for either the economy or democracy, I've got a few CDO's to sell you. If states don't to back to doing their job of satisfying necessities through creating jobs, Brexit will barely be a historical curiosity.

notimp · Jan 10, 2019

Agree. But Amazon was smarter. They built infrastructure to do predictive modeling on what people will buy. Their logistics concept ships stuff around when they estimate demand spikes, and also can do shelfspace allocation better, and they do it large scale (delivery centers are strategically placed over entire regions, based on where they need to be, not where "cities are", ...).

So like in war - logistics wins the battle.

All other players are outcompeted already. They just dont know it yet.

To "match" Amazon - even regionally is aready impossible - because you are up against the market leader, you lack know how, and you dont have the scale effects that Amazon has.

And Amazon already went into horizontal markets. Like offsetting shipping costs with streaming subscriptions - or selling stores hosting space on AWS. Everyone else is so effed, its not even funny.

The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

Yeah! This is happenin'!

You don`t want to listen to anything I say.

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

Headmaster

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Yeah! This is happenin'!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Yeah! This is happenin'!

Well-Known Member

Yeah! This is happenin'!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum