just at I said
Anyone for a Brexit ?
- Thread starter Luke Cropwalker
- Start date
so you are saying that paying wages is not a big expense and if they go up that expense will not get bigger
Keeping wages down over time sucks wealth away from working people and transfers it to business and asset owners. It creates, sustains and increases poverty and social deprivation. It's the very last thing you need if you want a proper society for your children and grandchildren to grow up in.
There needs to be modest inflation over time, in wages as in price of goods and services. Modest inflation coupled with controlled interest rates are absolutely key to reducing the nominal debt on that house you bought with a mortgage back in the day.
not much f**king good when all they do is import stuff from countries that don't have such high wages and you have no job and no money
What total nonsense. All inflation does is steal money from the people. If I have £100 in the bank, over time it becomes worthless due to inflation. The government wants inflation as they are in debt. Inflation robs those that lent the government money as the government does not have to repay as much.
Inflation destroys the wealth of a nation.
If you didn't have a job you wouldn't have a wage in the first instance
On the other hand if those who had jobs had a wage increasing modestly over time,
they would continue to be able to afford stuff. They spend what they can afford, which
in turn creates demand and delivers extra VAT to the government, which in turn helps fund
services and also helps sustain existing jobs, and create new jobs.
That's a virtuous circle.
On the other hand if those who had jobs had a wage increasing modestly over time,
they would continue to be able to afford stuff. They spend what they can afford, which
in turn creates demand and delivers extra VAT to the government, which in turn helps fund
services and also helps sustain existing jobs, and create new jobs.
That's a virtuous circle.
I did say modest inflation. Central banks around the world have a target inflation rate of normally 2%.
That is considered to be the optimal inflation rate over time to deliver long term sustainable economic growth.
5312
Member
- Location
- South Wales
I was told by an economist once that you have to have inflation, 2% is the ideal.
This is because nearly all money in existence is created as debt and inflation is the only way that the debt interest can ultimately be paid.
If there was only £100 in existence and it was created as debt ( as banks create money out of thin air by making loans) then there would be no other money in existence to pay the interest.
I haven't explained in that well
This is because nearly all money in existence is created as debt and inflation is the only way that the debt interest can ultimately be paid.
If there was only £100 in existence and it was created as debt ( as banks create money out of thin air by making loans) then there would be no other money in existence to pay the interest.
I haven't explained in that well
5312
Member
- Location
- South Wales
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson in the debate over The Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809).
So by keeping inflation nominally low, they just take longer to rob you. Doesn't make it right.
The fallacy with the economists argument is the basis that all money is debt. When sterling was just that, sterling silver, it was not debt. Governments could not 'print' it and increase the money supply to pay for their pet projects. They were truly accountable to the public for how they spent the money. Now they just turn the printing presses on and leave the problem to succeeding generations.
When debt is incurred, it is repaid from profits. In government circles, 'profit' is taxation. They don't want to tax the people to pay for the governments pet projects, so they print money and inflate the debt away, robing the people of the value of their savings and assets along the way. They don't notice it, so don't object to it, like they would object to taxation.
Last edited:
5312
Member
- Location
- South Wales
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. Henry Ford
Read more at: http://mobile.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.html
Read more at: http://mobile.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.html
Very true. Then they stupidly created the Federal Reserve, a private bank, and did just that - created money then turned on the printing presses and destroyed the value of that money!
5312
Member
- Location
- South Wales
I agree that it should be like that. But it has not been that way for hundreds of years.
The fact is that banks create money and lend it to government and ordinary people alike.
There is a movement for "real money"
JFK was assassinated shortly after calling for the government to create money instead of borrowing from banks. Just one of many theories, of course.
- Location
- Beragh, Co Tyrone, Northern Ireland
Was there not someone who said all governments were basically ponzi schemes?
Giles Turner
New Member
Hello – I’m a reporter looking to talk to people about their thoughts on the EU Referendum. Many in the Remain camp believe that a Leave vote will damage the UK financial sector, and lead to many workers in that sector to either lose their jobs, or leave for European cities.
I’m interested in whether people think that a smaller financial sector is a good or bad thing, and why - or if they believe that Brexit might even be a good thing for the financial sector, and lead to more bankers and traders working in the UK.
If you have time to talk today or tomorrow, please drop me an email at [email protected] (The Wall Street Journal)
Thank you for your time.
I’m interested in whether people think that a smaller financial sector is a good or bad thing, and why - or if they believe that Brexit might even be a good thing for the financial sector, and lead to more bankers and traders working in the UK.
If you have time to talk today or tomorrow, please drop me an email at [email protected] (The Wall Street Journal)
Thank you for your time.
Last edited:
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
If I'd been smoking a pipe, I'd have bit the end clean off of it!
Every farmer I know round here bar two is going to vote OUT. But one of them, who I regard as the more loyal to the EU than the other, just rang me up to say he is voting OUT too! When I asked him why he has changed his mind, I couldn't get a word in sideways to shut him up. Must have cost him a fortune on his mobile contract.
The other one is definitely wavering too.
Every farmer I know round here bar two is going to vote OUT. But one of them, who I regard as the more loyal to the EU than the other, just rang me up to say he is voting OUT too! When I asked him why he has changed his mind, I couldn't get a word in sideways to shut him up. Must have cost him a fortune on his mobile contract.
The other one is definitely wavering too.
- Location
- Somerset
I have a lot of respect for Daniel Hannon MEP so when he writes a warning then I tend to read it. Here he states that the EU are postponing ten issues until after we have had our referendum. No guesses for why.
1. Banning hair-dryers
The EU plans to outlaw high-energy dishwashers, hair-dryers and other household appliances. It comes after lobbying by German manufacturers, who see an opportunity to keep competitors out of the market.
Even supporters reluctantly admit its environmental impact would be tiny: these gadgets account for 12 per cent of household energy use, or 1 per cent of our carbon footprint. As so often, something presented as eco-friendly turns out to be about commercial advantage.
The proposal, as Commissioner Jyrki Katainen observes, has been ‘ridiculed in the media’. He means the British media, and he’s right. The Finnish politician’s response? Postpone it until autumn.
2. A bigger budget
A mid-term review of the European Union’s seven-year budget was due at the start of the year. But it’s been postponed till after our referendum. Brussels officials privately admitted they were reluctant to give extra ammunition to British Leave campaigners.
What extra ammunition? By the EU’s own admission, its unpaid bills amount to €24.7 billion (£19.6 billion).
Britain pays 12.5 per cent of the budget, so our share of those bills is an additional £2.4 billion. That’s before the extra money being demanded by MEPs to deal with the migration crisis.
3. Open borders
David Cameron tried and failed to get an agreement that the EU’s free movement rules would not apply to countries that might join the EU in future, such as Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey.
If we vote to remain on unchanged terms, we are accepting in perpetuity that there can be no control over migratory flows. Having failed to get a better deal before voting to leave, there is no chance of getting one if we were to stay.
The migration crisis has cruelly exposed the weakness of the EU’s Schengen Agreement (which abolished EU internal borders). When Britain joined, we agreed to open our borders to the EU. The EU has now clearly opened its
borders to the world. That was never the deal.
4. More bail-outs
The Prime Minister has said very clearly that Britain is exempt from any further bail-outs. The trouble is, he said it in 2013. In June 2015, when Brussels needed more cash for the third Greek bail-out, the UK was forced to loan it £600 million.
Mr Cameron hadn’t lied. He had, indeed, secured an agreement — a written agreement, drawn up in the clearest possible language — that Britain would not have to prop up a currency it had declined to join. But the moment that agreement became inconvenient, the EU ripped it up; Britain was powerless to stop it.
How long before the euro crisis spreads to Italy and France, making Greece look like a sideshow? Jim Mellon, the investment guru, says: ‘When this happens — and I am guessing that it will within three years — the crisis will be so huge that Germany and Britain (if we are still in) would have to help out.’
Having made a billion pounds out of knowing when to buy and sell, he is urging us to sell EU membership urgently.
In June 2015, when Brussels needed more cash for the third Greek bail-out, the UK was forced to loan it £600 million
5. Deeper integration
The EU is responding to the euro and migration crises in the way it responds to everything: by giving more power to Brussels.
To anyone else, it might seem odd to prescribe more of the medicine that sickened the patient in the first place, but Eurocrats are Eurocrats.
In an official document last summer known as the Five Presidents’ Report (the EU has a lot of presidents), Brussels officials called for the harmonisation of budgets, economic policy and taxation, as well as elements of social security.
Although these things are a response to the euro crisis, most will be brought in as single market measures, because that is the only legal mechanism at the EU’s disposal. They will therefore apply to all 28 member states. Britain, despite staying out of the euro and the border-free zone, will be dragged in.
6. Human rights
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) began life as, in effect, the highest tribunal of a trade bloc. Yet, as the EU extended its powers into new areas, the ECJ is now more like a supreme court.
The greatest extension of its powers has come with the adoption of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Suddenly, as well as economic issues, euro-judges settle human rights questions.
For example, in a preliminary decision, they have ruled against the deportation of hate-preacher Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law after her criminal conviction. She is not a British national, but her son is, and the ECJ holds that her deportation would violate his rights as an EU citizen.
7. Arts import licences
London is the centre of the global trade in fine arts, bringing in billions in revenue. Its competitors are New York, Geneva and Hong Kong.
Britain has already been disadvantaged by the EU’s application of VAT to fine arts sales and, even more, by the preposterous Resale Rights rule, which obliges traders to pay a percentage to the heirs of the original artist each time a work is sold on.
Now, Brussels plans an import licensing regime, which would again subject London to more cost and bureaucracy than overseas rivals.
Anthony Browne, chairman of the British Art Market Federation, says: ‘Our big concern is that an import licence system would impose a new and very damaging burden on the British art market which is heavily dependent on cross-border trading.’
8. Wrecking our ports
The EU wants to oblige every port to have more than one provider for its internal services, such as mooring, dredging and unloading.
This might make sense for state-owned or state-subsidised mega-ports on the Continent, such as Antwerp, Hamburg and Rotterdam. But it makes no sense for British ports which are private, small, and in competition with each other.
Everyone agrees that the measure will deter investment. Every British port operator and every trade union opposes it.
Every British MEP, from the Greens to Ukip, voted against it. But it went through the European Parliament anyway, only to have the final decision suddenly deferred.
It, too, will come back after the referendum. If we vote to stay in, these new rules will hit some of our most successful ports, including Belfast, Glasgow, Bristol, Liverpool, Cardiff, Harwich and Southampton.
9. Quotas for online TV
The European Commission wants online providers to reserve 20 per cent of their content for European programmes which should, it says, be given ‘good visibility’.
EU rules already oblige terrestrial TV to invest in, and broadcast, a certain
amount of European material.
The European Commission doesn’t want online providers to be exempt. So, more Euro-noir, less U.S. drama.
10. A European Army
‘No one is talking about a European Army’, say Remainers. No one, except the people running the EU. The European Commission, in its formal statement, calls a European Army ‘a strategic necessity’.
One by one, the EU has acquired the attributes of statehood: a president and a parliament; a currency and taxes; embassies and a foreign minister; a supreme court and a legal system; a national anthem and a flag. A European Army is the logical next step.
1. Banning hair-dryers
The EU plans to outlaw high-energy dishwashers, hair-dryers and other household appliances. It comes after lobbying by German manufacturers, who see an opportunity to keep competitors out of the market.
Even supporters reluctantly admit its environmental impact would be tiny: these gadgets account for 12 per cent of household energy use, or 1 per cent of our carbon footprint. As so often, something presented as eco-friendly turns out to be about commercial advantage.
The proposal, as Commissioner Jyrki Katainen observes, has been ‘ridiculed in the media’. He means the British media, and he’s right. The Finnish politician’s response? Postpone it until autumn.
2. A bigger budget
A mid-term review of the European Union’s seven-year budget was due at the start of the year. But it’s been postponed till after our referendum. Brussels officials privately admitted they were reluctant to give extra ammunition to British Leave campaigners.
What extra ammunition? By the EU’s own admission, its unpaid bills amount to €24.7 billion (£19.6 billion).
Britain pays 12.5 per cent of the budget, so our share of those bills is an additional £2.4 billion. That’s before the extra money being demanded by MEPs to deal with the migration crisis.
3. Open borders
David Cameron tried and failed to get an agreement that the EU’s free movement rules would not apply to countries that might join the EU in future, such as Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey.
If we vote to remain on unchanged terms, we are accepting in perpetuity that there can be no control over migratory flows. Having failed to get a better deal before voting to leave, there is no chance of getting one if we were to stay.
The migration crisis has cruelly exposed the weakness of the EU’s Schengen Agreement (which abolished EU internal borders). When Britain joined, we agreed to open our borders to the EU. The EU has now clearly opened its
borders to the world. That was never the deal.
4. More bail-outs
The Prime Minister has said very clearly that Britain is exempt from any further bail-outs. The trouble is, he said it in 2013. In June 2015, when Brussels needed more cash for the third Greek bail-out, the UK was forced to loan it £600 million.
Mr Cameron hadn’t lied. He had, indeed, secured an agreement — a written agreement, drawn up in the clearest possible language — that Britain would not have to prop up a currency it had declined to join. But the moment that agreement became inconvenient, the EU ripped it up; Britain was powerless to stop it.
How long before the euro crisis spreads to Italy and France, making Greece look like a sideshow? Jim Mellon, the investment guru, says: ‘When this happens — and I am guessing that it will within three years — the crisis will be so huge that Germany and Britain (if we are still in) would have to help out.’
Having made a billion pounds out of knowing when to buy and sell, he is urging us to sell EU membership urgently.
In June 2015, when Brussels needed more cash for the third Greek bail-out, the UK was forced to loan it £600 million
5. Deeper integration
The EU is responding to the euro and migration crises in the way it responds to everything: by giving more power to Brussels.
To anyone else, it might seem odd to prescribe more of the medicine that sickened the patient in the first place, but Eurocrats are Eurocrats.
In an official document last summer known as the Five Presidents’ Report (the EU has a lot of presidents), Brussels officials called for the harmonisation of budgets, economic policy and taxation, as well as elements of social security.
Although these things are a response to the euro crisis, most will be brought in as single market measures, because that is the only legal mechanism at the EU’s disposal. They will therefore apply to all 28 member states. Britain, despite staying out of the euro and the border-free zone, will be dragged in.
6. Human rights
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) began life as, in effect, the highest tribunal of a trade bloc. Yet, as the EU extended its powers into new areas, the ECJ is now more like a supreme court.
The greatest extension of its powers has come with the adoption of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Suddenly, as well as economic issues, euro-judges settle human rights questions.
For example, in a preliminary decision, they have ruled against the deportation of hate-preacher Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law after her criminal conviction. She is not a British national, but her son is, and the ECJ holds that her deportation would violate his rights as an EU citizen.
7. Arts import licences
London is the centre of the global trade in fine arts, bringing in billions in revenue. Its competitors are New York, Geneva and Hong Kong.
Britain has already been disadvantaged by the EU’s application of VAT to fine arts sales and, even more, by the preposterous Resale Rights rule, which obliges traders to pay a percentage to the heirs of the original artist each time a work is sold on.
Now, Brussels plans an import licensing regime, which would again subject London to more cost and bureaucracy than overseas rivals.
Anthony Browne, chairman of the British Art Market Federation, says: ‘Our big concern is that an import licence system would impose a new and very damaging burden on the British art market which is heavily dependent on cross-border trading.’
8. Wrecking our ports
The EU wants to oblige every port to have more than one provider for its internal services, such as mooring, dredging and unloading.
This might make sense for state-owned or state-subsidised mega-ports on the Continent, such as Antwerp, Hamburg and Rotterdam. But it makes no sense for British ports which are private, small, and in competition with each other.
Everyone agrees that the measure will deter investment. Every British port operator and every trade union opposes it.
Every British MEP, from the Greens to Ukip, voted against it. But it went through the European Parliament anyway, only to have the final decision suddenly deferred.
It, too, will come back after the referendum. If we vote to stay in, these new rules will hit some of our most successful ports, including Belfast, Glasgow, Bristol, Liverpool, Cardiff, Harwich and Southampton.
9. Quotas for online TV
The European Commission wants online providers to reserve 20 per cent of their content for European programmes which should, it says, be given ‘good visibility’.
EU rules already oblige terrestrial TV to invest in, and broadcast, a certain
amount of European material.
The European Commission doesn’t want online providers to be exempt. So, more Euro-noir, less U.S. drama.
10. A European Army
‘No one is talking about a European Army’, say Remainers. No one, except the people running the EU. The European Commission, in its formal statement, calls a European Army ‘a strategic necessity’.
One by one, the EU has acquired the attributes of statehood: a president and a parliament; a currency and taxes; embassies and a foreign minister; a supreme court and a legal system; a national anthem and a flag. A European Army is the logical next step.
- Tags
- ceat
Expanded and improved Sustainable Farming Incentive offer for farmers published
Expanded Sustainable Farming Incentive offer from July will give the sector a clear path forward and boost farm business resilience.
From: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and The Rt Hon Sir Mark Spencer MP Published21 May 2024
Full details of the expanded and improved Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) offer available to farmers from July have been published by the...
From: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and The Rt Hon Sir Mark Spencer MP Published21 May 2024
Full details of the expanded and improved Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) offer available to farmers from July have been published by the...