Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The battle of Brexit!

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Amled View Post
    On a recent visit to Cleveland, I was amazed at the change for the better that city has seen.
    When last there in the ‘80s and ‘90’s it was still a grimy and polluted industrial town, and the less said about the river the better.
    Now a renovated waterfront, cleaned up the river and according to my nephew the jobs are coming back.
    So maybe it is cyclic.
    Some US industrial cities have done well transitioning toward the new economy. Pittsburgh and Minneapolis immediately come to mind, they have been a huge success.

    Some industrial cities have lost out, perhaps permanently, perhaps temporarily - Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee.

    Cleveland's progress - no offense to Cleveland residents - is an illusion, I believe it's akin to putting lipstick on a pig. Cleveland and Ohio have poured money into downtown Cleveland, but walk a few blocks past that pretty riverfront, and you'll see the reality of Cleveland.

    Cleveland is looking to Minneapolis and Pittsburgh as a model - but it has not yet seen the success these two cities have.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 08 Apr 17,, 03:19.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      Minneapolis, but I'm originally from the iron/taconite mining areas - the high-grade iron ore supplied 80% of US iron ore needs during WWII, and since then the region has been scraping by on low-grade taconite - which worked for a few decades, but now the local economy is subject to vicious cyclical trends in the iron commodities market - when the prices go up, the plants re-open, when the price of iron goes down - everyone is laid off and secondary and tertiary jobs are lost as well.

      My profile says Arlington, VA - that was six years ago. I'll update it now.

      The region I'm from supplied raw taconite/iron, shipped to a Great Lakes port city, much of which ended up in Pennsylvania/Ohio steel mills. Part of the greater Great Lakes industrial economy of coal, iron, and steel. The structure of the industrial economy was mainly as follows:
      • Northern Minnesota/Upper Michigan: iron/taconite
      • Appalachia: coal
      • Buffalo/Pittsburgh/West Pennsylvania/Cleveland areas: steel
      • Detroit area: cars

      All have suffered badly. Those days are mostly gone, just as the Cornish tin trade (brass/bronze) centuries before was, as well as the northern England coal/steel trade in decades past is. It is the same exact macro-economic trend playing out - the country is the only thing that is different.

      These trends that are causing so much economic and societal strife in England, which are also occurring in the US - they are only on a time delay from being lost in the countries that have supposedly been moved to. They'll be lost in South Korea, China, India, etc. - these jobs are only on temporary loan until automation and the services economy establish themselves in these economies.

      The even bigger picture is - steel, coal, oil are merely stopgap technologies. All will be rendered, for the overwhelming part, obsolete. They provided solid work, a middle class income, and bread for over 200 years - but they are being replaced and will rendered largely obsolete in just a few decades time - there's no sense in hitching one's wagon to a star that will burn, crash, and die in our 21st century.

      I believe that steel, coal, and oil and the technologies that are based upon them - are extremely economically inefficient in the long-term, and create enormous negative externalities in terms of pollution, impact on human health, and environmental devastation. There are other, superior technologies that are emerging - they are as of yet in the bleeding/leading-edge phase, but I firmly believe that steel, coal, and oil are a losing bet.

      200 years is the length of several human lifetimes - and it may seem like an eternity to all of us whom are alive today, and it likewise seems that steel, coal, and oil are eternal necessities and there is going to be a continuing need for them that is immutable - I don't believe this is true. 200 years is merely a couple ticks of the second hand of the clock in all of the history of human existence that has played out, and is yet to play out.

      Rather than demanding these jobs come back - it is a better course of action in my opinion to hold the politicians in London and Brussels accountable for failing to mitigate the worst effects of these macro-economic trends, and for failing to provide the resources to re-educate and re-skill those who have been left behind.

      We had our very own Brexit in the US - the election of Trump. Many in my own family and people they know in the region I'm from voted him into office. They were responding to the identical economic problems, and the resulting societal problems that caused Brexit.
      I agree, technology is the main reason alot of jobs have gone forever and yes 200 years is a short time in terms of mankind.
      We don't want the cotton mills back or the coal mines. What we do want is to be governed by our own government. We want control of our own affairs. Control over who enters this country and who doesn't. We want to trade freely with the EU, Asia, Australia and America. We want to be able to create new industries without being over regulated by a system of government thats only function is to create new regulations. We'll comply to EU standards in the same way we'll comply to US standards in order to trade respectively. But back home we want the freedom to do what we want!.... its not that hard to understand...
      Last edited by Toby; 09 Apr 17,, 22:31.

      Comment


      • #93
        You're not wrong and I'm not disagreeing - FYI, my references to steel, coal, oil, and the industrial economy were not directed at anything you said - they were a general commentary with regards to the motives that many Englanders, Scotlanders, Welsh used as a basis for making their decision to vote for Brexit. Many did in fact vote with their feet and used economic rationales as their primary reason for voting for Brexit.

        Decisions made at the centralized level (e.g. Brussels, London, D.C.) can be inflexible, rigid, and brittle, and cause breakage and harm in these regions that are experiencing diseconomies of scale, in this post-industrial era that is emerging.

        I believe there is a better path for the EU - at the moment, with this drive to centralize in many respects with a one-size-fits-all approach - there is harm being created.

        I believed that maximum autonomy within the EU (for both UK and other EU members), while working to achieve maximum positive-sum outcomes for both UK and other EU states, while minimizing the negative sum, was the path to take. The ministers and bureaucrats in Brussels... their motives and rationales are overtly stated and transparent - they want to use continued and increasing/deepening centralization as a means with which to create an end - a European superstate.

        The UK, for the vast part, does not want to be a province in this superstate that the Brussels ministers and bureaucrats are transparently trying to create.

        Unfortunately, I believe with Brexit - the UK is going to lose its voice and place at the table with regards to the EU, and be marginalized, and that it will experience more harm than benefit from Brexit.

        History may or may not prove me wrong on this point -- we will see what happens as history unfolds.

        Personally, I would rather see the EU be reformed more along the lines of a multi-speed engine that has, with some imperfections, worked somewhat well in the past. The drive to centralize and adopt one-size-fits-all -- it must be resisted. The UK was often the lone actor in resisting these decisions and moderating them - it may very well no longer be able to with Brexit.
        Last edited by Ironduke; 09 Apr 17,, 19:06.
        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
          Personally, I would rather see the EU be reformed more along the lines of a multi-speed engine that has, with some imperfections, worked somewhat well in the past.
          The problem with two-speed Europe is that the exact same countries that want the EU down - Poland in particular - are deeply opposed to two-speed models for fears of getting knocked off pretty much. Part of those fears is that the low-speed region - i.e. them - would lose the massive subsidies of the west that have become truly ridiculous amounts by now (Poland gets about 5 times as much from the EU as the UK net contributes...).

          With Brexit, the European Union simplifies and centralizes more simply because the core assumed to be able of going high-speed now holds 40% of the population instead of 35% and also produces 52.4% of the EU's GDP instead of 44%. And if you add the western mediterranean that tends to pull along when it comes to EU matters you get to 65% of the population and 76.7% of the GDP.

          Comment


          • #95
            I think we already have a many speed Europe and have for a long time. We have the Eurozone, Schengen, the EEA, EFTA, the customs Union, CEFA, GUAM, the Council of Europe, the EU Monetary agreement etc.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by zara View Post


              No I don't work for the EU. I guess only explanation is that I must be one of those brainwashed children you were talking about
              We've all been brainwashed Zara, some of us actually realise and question it! ;)

              Comment


              • #97
                Well well

                If anyone was under any illusions that the EU is not a totally rigged system, the unfolding story of the EU’s draft Brexit guidelines will surely eradicate them.

                The guidelines, published 48 hours after the Prime Minister’s EU withdrawal letter at the end of last month were put together by uber-establishment figure and European Council President Donald Tusk and his team of highly-paid bureaucrats. Ludicrously, the guidelines give Spain a possible Brexit-deal over Gibraltar.

                Under any normal democratic exercise, the guidelines would then go through a political grinder, coming out the other end a totally different shape. The EU27 were supposed to be that grinder, but early indications are that they will be left untouched.

                “I have not heard any rumbles of any bit of the guidelines being out of kilter with the general view,” said a senior diplomat.

                The signs are that the European establishment, made up not only of bureaucrats in Brussels, but the globalist political elite of each EU nation are forming a tightly knit circle over the Brexit negotiations. As the strict guidelines show – Britain is to be stay tethered to the EU legal system way beyond 2019 – Merkel, Tusk and Co. are clearly plotting against a Clean Brexit.

                If the political class of the EU want to make unreasonable demands, then UK can quite easily walk out of the door with no deal. That outcome is sure to make some European politicians unpopular amongst their electorate.

                By Westmonster April 11, 2017

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by tankie View Post
                  That outcome is sure to make some European politicians unpopular amongst their electorate.
                  Do the islanders really think that European electorates care about them? I mean, the opinion on the street here is sorta the same as with Trump. They voted for it, they deserve it. Let them crash and burn.

                  For any consequences, financially or otherwise, our electorate holds solely the British responsible.

                  Originally posted by zara View Post
                  I think we already have a many speed Europe and have for a long time. We have the Eurozone, Schengen, the EEA, EFTA, the customs Union, CEFA, GUAM, the Council of Europe, the EU Monetary agreement etc.
                  Well, the two-speed in that is mostly the UK bowing out or getting some sort of special deal, occasionally pulling others along (e.g. Ireland for Schengen, Denmark for the Euro...). A lot of that thing will come under scrutiny once we're rid of Britain. For example, the Euro? Every EU state except the UK and Denmark is obligated to join it already now, and after Brexit over 75% of the Union will use the Euro. Schengen? Only one out is Ireland. Customs Union, EUCU? Everyone's in. EEA and EFTA? Well, the EEA is defined as the combination of EFTA and EU. Pretty simple. It'll be the same with a lot of things. We'll just have to put some pressure on them. And now that we'll no longer be under the Crown's thumb it's a good opportunity for that.
                  Last edited by kato; 11 Apr 17,, 14:52.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by kato View Post
                    The problem with two-speed Europe is that the exact same countries that want the EU down - Poland in particular - are deeply opposed to two-speed models for fears of getting knocked off pretty much. Part of those fears is that the low-speed region - i.e. them - would lose the massive subsidies of the west that have become truly ridiculous amounts by now (Poland gets about 5 times as much from the EU as the UK net contributes...).

                    With Brexit, the European Union simplifies and centralizes more simply because the core assumed to be able of going high-speed now holds 40% of the population instead of 35% and also produces 52.4% of the EU's GDP instead of 44%. And if you add the western mediterranean that tends to pull along when it comes to EU matters you get to 65% of the population and 76.7% of the GDP.
                    kato,

                    Eerste, ich muss sage, Grussen und wie gehts, es hat viele Jahre sind, ich fuhle gluckliche dass du bist hier an WAB jetzt. Meine Deutsch ist schlect jetzt, ich vergesse wiele Worten und Grammar uber die letzte Jahre, aber ich fuhle es ist gut genug fur einfach Diskutierungen. Aber, in meine Defense, meine Niederlandisch ist zehr, zehr mehr schlect. Vorwarts, in dem Futur, mit die Genehmigung von der Staff, vielleicht wir fur ein Deustch Teile von WAB arbeiten. Fuhlt frei zu kontakt mir durch PM. Ich bevorzuge Deutsch durch PM, aber Englisch ist OK auch. Ich brauche online Worterbuch fur nur einige Worten.

                    Aber fur jetzt, auf Englisch, meine Antworten:

                    There is always going to be imperfection with this model - if too much money is sent to these poorer countries or poorer regions, what is built, as we say in English, a house of cards. I believe firmly that the economic growth and new infrastructure that is developed is not entirely organic - it is primarily artificial. I believe that too much in monies were given to countries and regions on the outliers - much of this money was what we call in English, "lipstick on a pig".

                    I think the status quo modus operandi of the bureaucrats and ministers in Brussels, that their model is unsustainable. Investing in human capital, to complement industrial and infrastructural capital, is a dire necessity. This EU model of throwing tens/100s of billions at problems, is, as we say yet again in English, a leaky bucket. It leads to a house of cards in many nations/regions that is prone to collapse when there are international economic shocks.

                    Ich habe keine genug Zeit bei der Moment, ich werde zurruck fur mehr tiefliche Kommenten spater.
                    Last edited by Ironduke; 11 Apr 17,, 16:50.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                      Well well

                      If anyone was under any illusions that the EU is not a totally rigged system, the unfolding story of the EU’s draft Brexit guidelines will surely eradicate them.
                      tankie,

                      First - hello again, it has been a long time.

                      Brexit - unfortunately the middle ground has been hollowed out - both sides, EU and UK, are now playing hardball and taking extreme positions.

                      I am hopeful for the future of both the EU and the UK - and hope that both are able to land on their feet uninjured. As an American, I'm an outsider on this debate, and I obviously have no influence whatsoever regarding any of these events that are transpiring. I'm merely watching from afar in the manner of the private citizen I have always been, and hopefully, my outsider perspective isn't seen as meddlesome.

                      I look forward to re-joining this discussion, I'll be back on the thread over the coming days.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Toby View Post
                        Because Hercules decreed it!
                        1. Heracles*
                        2. Not Atlas?

                        Originally posted by Toby View Post
                        Do you and Snapper work for the EU Zara?
                        On my part negative. Never have, not likely to.

                        Wb Ironduke.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                          There is always going to be imperfection with this model - if too much money is sent to these poorer countries or poorer regions, what is built, as we say in English, a house of cards.
                          Money is always a relative thing. Germany has so far invested around 120,000 Euro per person living in East Germany in the last 26.5 years and is estimated to transfer 5,000-6,000 Euro per person per year over there still.

                          Compared to that Poland (highest in absolute amounts) gets around 250 Euro per person from the EU these days, Slovakia and the Czech Republic as the front runners around 550 Euro, Greece around 450 Euro.

                          Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                          I believe that too much in monies were given to countries and regions on the outliers - much of this money was what we call in English, "lipstick on a pig".
                          Eh, one has to look at the individual countries and projects there - it's not like we're just giving them the money and tell them to spend it as they like.

                          This is the list for Slovakia for the current budget round for example. At least at a glance they all seem to address vital points; from having visited the country before it joined the EU i can see where the money is supposed to go and what (limited!) targets they aim to achieve. And it goes somewhat beyond what's mentioned there, because EU subsidies also lead to investments like this or this (for a summary see here. Those new job numbers created sound small, but we're talking about a country of 5.5 million of which one quarter lives around the capital and the rest in rural backwaters where twenty years ago people were still pulling plows with oxen.

                          There are of course other projects - and whole countries - where i'm less optimistic. In Poland we're financing much less progress-focused stuff - upgrading and replacing infrastructure, financing kindergartens (!) and "supporting unemployed in their job search". Seriously? That's about the kind of stuff we're financing in East Germany, without progress over more than a quarter century.

                          Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                          Vorwarts, in dem Futur, mit die Genehmigung von der Staff, vielleicht wir fur ein Deustch Teile von WAB arbeiten.
                          Das hatten wir bereits einmal. Dort waren im Grunde nur Tarek und ich aktiv. ;)

                          Comment


                          • kato,

                            I was referring more to what was seen in the so-called "PIGS". Aid to the outer marginal "regions" seems to have fallen flat in many instances as well. I'm not an expert on these subjects - more so than the vast majority of Americans, but less so than Europeans living in these realities. From what I'm aware, there are broad similarities on a more limited level, occurring in the United States. Tax-free zones and government subsidies for rural development where benefits are temporary or do not have as a sustainable, positive impact as intended.

                            Some of the Eastern European countries have done well and been relative success stories, others have had mixed results or seem, as I put it, built a house of cards (e.g. Greece). Of course, hindsight is 20/20. The assistance was well-intentioned but there are serious endemic weaknesses that prevent it from having any major impact other than being a shot in the arm. Of course, I'm generalizing on a subject that is, of course, in reality, more varied or nuanced.

                            I'll elaborate more later - about to get busy.

                            Das hatten wir bereits einmal. Dort waren im Grunde nur Tarek und ich aktiv.
                            Es braucht kritische mass. Aber, es ist weder hier oder jetzt, so wir auf Englisch sagen.
                            Last edited by Ironduke; 12 Apr 17,, 08:49.
                            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                              Wb Ironduke.
                              Good to see you again. :)
                              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                                I was referring more to what was seen in the so-called "PIGS". Aid to the outer marginal "regions" seems to have fallen flat in many instances as well.
                                We barely give money to the PIGS countries - and actually that should be "PGS", since Italy is in fact a rather important net contributor to the budget.

                                For 2015, by region:
                                • Net recipient regions:
                                  • PIGS : 7,903.9 million Euro (to 130 million people - about 60 Euro each; without Italy: about 160 Euro each)
                                  • Romania/Bulgaria : 7,433.9 million Euro (to 30 million people - about 250 Euro each)
                                  • Visegrad states : 22,914.1 million Euro (to 65 million people - about 350 Euro each)
                                  • Baltic states : 1,542.6 million Euro (to 6 million people - about 250 Euro each)
                                  • Former Yugoslavia (Croatia/Slovenia) : 805.6 million Euro (to 6 million people - about 135 Euro each)
                                  • Edit: European Union (administration etc) : 598.6 million Euro (from/to 510 million people - about 1.20 Euro each)
                                • Net contributing regions:
                                  • "Inner Engine" (Germany/France/Benelux): - 25,006.3 million Euro (from 175 million people - about 140 Euro each)
                                  • United Kingdom and Ireland : - 11,870.7 million Euro (from 70 million people - about 170 Euro each)
                                  • Northern Europe (Sweden/Finland/Denmark): - 3,478.9 million Euro (from 20 million people - about 170 Euro each)
                                  • Rest of the EU (Austria, Malta, Cyprus): - 842.8 million Euro (from 10 million people - about 85 Euro each)


                                The money that the PIGS states - Spain and Portugal in particular - receive can be tied to one thing, and one thing only. Farming subsidies. If we'd cut those both Portugal and Spain would be net contributors; Greece would sit in a much better position.

                                In Portugal we're investing in farming in order to make the country more self-sufficient (they're importing 50% more food than they're exporting) and to keep farms surviving in the first place (most farmers in Portugal are of older generations, far more than average for the EU; also most holdings are not consolidated, with three-in-four farms having less than 12 acres of land). In Spain we're pretty much doing the opposite, mostly investing in modernization of farms and switching farmers to more sustainable land use models including reforestation of millions of acres. Greece has the problem of having the situation of both Portugal and Spain in combination - and intensified.

                                Per se these subsidies can be considered to have some sort of impact and development. It just won't be short-term. More generational than measured in months or years.
                                Last edited by kato; 12 Apr 17,, 14:37.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X