What would you like to see in a post-EU UK?

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
There seem to be a number of false conclusions there.Starting with an exaggerated view of the effects of oil dependency v supply.In which at least us from the mid-late 1970’s and the US were in a far better situation of self sufficiency than Germany for example.While for ‘some’ reason the German economy as usual seemed to suffer less from the 1973 on oil situation than ours did.When ours would have been expected to be far better insulated from that at least from the mid 1970’s.IE yet another example of the government not applying protectionist measures in which UK produced oil would have been expected to be kept in artificially higher supply in the domestic market at the expense of oil exports.

Just to be clear, I’m not locating the problems of global capitalism as being fundamentally caused by the 1973 oil shock, it just triggered the crisis and the vampire finally struck back.

What I am saying is that it’s precisely an example of how when other states control essential components of the economic system, or if nobody really controls them, unmanageable disruption will regularly arise from that part of the system. If we respond entirely within our own political domain, such as by building big oil bunkers within our own borders, then prices will go up to pay for this, and they’ll just turn the supply taps off twice or ten times as long, or redirect the oil to their closer allies or opportunists waging a trade war, or the oil wells will be taken over or destroyed by external events.

As for the UK prioritising it’s own supply, that’s just a return to beggar thy neighbour. Other states, to avoid ruinous disruptions, then have to secure their own supplies (at any military cost), and the supplies they seek to secure militarily may well be ours. Or their economy collapses, and they become failed states, or hotbeds of guerrilla action, or so forth.

It’s only by integrated political control that such oil (or other resources) is secured properly, and distributed according to principles like fairness and need (and rationing, if required, is imposed in an orderly and legitimate fashion, and appropriate compensations and compromises made elsewhere at the same time if necessary).

As for Fordist re distribution resulting in less profits,that goes against all the laws of Fordist economics.

It resulted in less profits for the capitalists he put out of business, and it resulted in lower rates of return on capital. Clearly, a 5% return on £1m is better than 30% return on £1k, and with each iteration it takes longer to accrue the capital needed to fund the next iteration. And in some cases, it will be found that there isn’t a potential next iteration at all - because production is as massive as it can be, and the capitalist owners with their duplicate competitive endeavours have been reduced to the fewest numbers there can be (usually 1, the monopolist).

Another problem is that today there aren’t so many obvious unfulfilled consumer needs. Cars were things people obviously wanted, and by having the mobility offered by cars that itself created huge new economic potentials. Today, our economy can already provide for all reasonable needs (it’s merely a question of distribution). The rich don’t seem to have an abundance of new products that we’re all going to want in a few years and which will make us massively more productive.

When the fact is higher wages just result in higher economic growth and higher levels of employment and higher levels of consumption.Also bearing in mind that a 10% increase in just the wage component of costs doesn’t mean a corresponding 10% increase in ‘overall’ unit price of the product nor a 10% ‘overall’ reduction in the profit margin.

Ultimately it does mean that. If wages go up 10% along the full chain of production, then the unit cost will typically go up by about the same. That will act as a transfer from unearned income to earned income, because those who live on wages will pay higher prices but receive higher wages, whereas those who live on dividends will pay higher prices but not receive the same dividends as before (which is a loss relative to consumer prices).

That’s why the Tories and Blairites constantly want competition in consumer prices, because to reduce consumer prices they normally force down wages or aggravate the conditions of work that workers experience without putting wages up, but they do not force down profits and dividends, so wage-earners are typically disfavoured by consumer price competition whereas dividend-recipients are favoured.

As for international governmental integration and economic inter dependency as opposed to Nation State protectionism.We’ve already got that in the form of the global free market economy and the EU.

But the EU is currently underpinned by politicians who think in terms of neoliberalism and the free market. It’s not an iron law. The EU could just as easily be driven by socialists.

Firstly how do you reach the conclusion that us prioritising our own national interest,in the form of keeping UK oil for the UK market,instead of giving the stuff away to Europe,means automatic war .To the point where Germany was actually better off economically after the 1973 ‘oil shock’ than we were.In just the same way that Greek debt and austerity v German prosperity is just an example of Germany looking after its own national interest all within the borders of the bs EU.

As for the idea that Socialism is the answer that’s as believable as your idea that 10% on just the wage cost component needs to be reflected by a 10% increase in total overall unit price at the factory gate. On that note I’d guess we’re seeing this from the point of view of an obvious Callaghan supporter v Shore.Unfortunately your bs Socialist Europhile vision having won out.With the state of the UK economy and democracy from 1979 to date,being the result.

While maybe hopefully things might be about to change in that regard in us getting the split we need in the Labour Party between Blairites,Socialists and Nationalists.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly how do you reach the conclusion that us prioritising our own national interest,in the form of keeping UK oil for the UK market,instead of giving the stuff away to Europe,means automatic war

Because the implication of Europe getting no oil when a dependency on external supplies exists, is that to have any chance of survival, they have to use military action against those who do have oil.

It might seem like a convenient answer to make our economy entirely self-dependent (and theirs too), but in truth no modern economy is or can be self-dependent. If you’re dependent on a single economic feedstock from outside your political jurisdiction, that one thing will eventually be the source of endless ructions in the economy unless we start to exert some sort of political control over the supply (whether by military might or peaceful settlement).

In reality, we depend on many things from outside, and any attempt to use military means to exert on our neighbours will be met in kind, so political union is the only other answer.

To the point where Germany was actually better off economically after the 1973 ‘oil shock’ than we were.In just the same way that Greek debt and austerity v German prosperity is just an example of Germany looking after its own national interest all within the borders of the bs EU.

Germany would look after it’s national interest outside the EU, too. That’s why the whole idea, in the end, is to sweep away national politicians (or certainly curtail their jurisdictions) and replace them with European politicians who do not have the mentality of looking after any particular nation in preference to another, and who are not accountable to any particular nation.

It’s no different to how the days of Manchester and Liverpool being in dispute with each other are long gone, because politicians who administer their affairs are not solely accountable to either (unlike when each city has its own political bureaucracy and central controls were weak).

As for the idea that Socialism is the answer that’s as believable as your idea that 10% on just the wage cost component needs to be reflected by a 10% increase in total overall unit price at the factory gate.

It’s classical labour theory of value. In fact we’re not even discussing value, but price. You’ll find that prices are normally a combination of the price of inputs, the cost of wage labour, and the cost of “rents” (like capitalist profit and landlord rents). If we recurse, and go into the accounts of the firms which supply the inputs, we find the same pattern. It is rare for rents to make up the majority of the cost of a product (although gold and diamonds are an example where it does). Wage labour is usually the biggest factor in the price, and increases in wage rates will lead to an increase in factory gate prices (in proportion to how the cost of wages makes up the unit price).

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly how do you reach the conclusion that us prioritising our own national interest,in the form of keeping UK oil for the UK market,instead of giving the stuff away to Europe,means automatic war

Because the implication of Europe getting no oil when a dependency on external supplies exists, is that to have any chance of survival, they have to use military action against those who do have oil.

It might seem like a convenient answer to make our economy entirely self-dependent (and theirs too), but in truth no modern economy is or can be self-dependent. If you’re dependent on a single economic feedstock from outside your political jurisdiction, that one thing will eventually be the source of endless ructions in the economy unless we start to exert some sort of political control over the supply (whether by military might or peaceful settlement).

In reality, we depend on many things from outside, and any attempt to use military means to exert on our neighbours will be met in kind, so political union is the only other answer.

To the point where Germany was actually better off economically after the 1973 ‘oil shock’ than we were.In just the same way that Greek debt and austerity v German prosperity is just an example of Germany looking after its own national interest all within the borders of the bs EU.

Germany would look after it’s national interest outside the EU, too. That’s why the whole idea, in the end, is to sweep away national politicians (or certainly curtail their jurisdictions) and replace them with European politicians who do not have the mentality of looking after any particular nation in preference to another, and who are not accountable to any particular nation.

It’s no different to how the days of Manchester and Liverpool being in dispute with each other are long gone, because politicians who administer their affairs are not solely accountable to either (unlike when each city has its own political bureaucracy and central controls were weak).

You’re jumping from one bat zb crazy conclusion to the next.While at the same time clearly showing the Socialist mindset in action.IE the frightening prospect of either a dependent importer goes to war to take what it wants and/or it takes over the country of the place that has the stuff it wants.Which is a reasonable explanation of what China is probably up to.IE it doesn’t have the food production capacity or the industrial raw materials and know how to sustain its population and it’s obvious what will happen when we run out of borrowed and printed cash to pay for it’s cheap and nasty exports of stuff we don’t need.Cash that it then uses to buy up farm land and real estate anywhere that it sees as being a strategic interest to it.While also explaining the bs Socialist idea that we went to war in the Middle East to take its oil.Which is actually what we ‘should’ have done in 1973 as payback for the Arabs and their Commy mates trying to use it as a weapon against us for our our support of Israel.

As for Germany and the rest of the EEC states being that stupid against us,for the crime of telling them to do one,our oil is for us to use not them and our national sovereignty is non negotiable yeah right bring it on. Meanwhile at least you’ve explained the real agenda behind Wilson’s and Callaghan’s support for our EU membership in the 1975.

IE Socialist ideology that those who have something that others want have to appease those others by giving them what they want because of the fears within their own bat zb crazy paranoid heads resulting from judging everyone by those same standards.Those standards being a world without borders and if you want something that another country has you just walk in and take it and/or that country and its people as a whole.

On that note as I said the split between Nationalist Labour v Socialist and Blairite Labour can’t happen quick enough if we want to save this country from itself and the Socialist enemy within.Also bearing in mind the issue isn’t just happening here.

protectionist.net/2012/12/19 … -australia

[carryfast]

Rjan:
Wage labour is usually the biggest factor in the price, and increases in wage rates will lead to an increase in factory gate prices (in proportion to how the cost of wages makes up the unit price).

No wages are ‘A’ factor in the price.As I said a 10% increase in wages doesn’t ( shouldn’t ) mean a 10% increase in overall factory gate unit price.But it does mean closer to a 10% increase in disposable income level therefore economic growth which means more demand and higher employment levels.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
As for Germany and the rest of the EEC states being that stupid against us,for the crime of telling them to do one,our oil is for us to use not them and our national sovereignty is non negotiable yeah right bring it on. Meanwhile at least you’ve explained the real agenda behind Wilson’s and Callaghan’s support for our EU membership in the 1975.

What you haven’t clocked is that I’m not speculating here, I’m describing the tensions that, unchecked in Europe, led to two world wars in 25 years.

I’m also only using oil as an example. The reality is that there are many basic things that have to move around the world across old national borders.

IE Socialist ideology that those who have something that others want have to appease those others by giving them what they want because of the fears within their own bat zb crazy paranoid heads resulting from judging everyone by those same standards.Those standards being a world without borders and if you want something that another country has you just walk in and take it and/or that country and its people as a whole.

It’s not about appeasement, it’s about sharing and trading natural resources on some basis that both sides accept is equitable, and about having effective representation in political arenas which do ultimately have the power to declare war.

Nationalist governments (and their electors) are prone to discount the effects of their policies on their neighbours (partly because they don’t even conceive the question as asking what is a fair settlement between the two, but by both sides each asking what is best for themselves alone).

By having representatives elected by and accountable to both sides, we know politicians tend to approach the problem differently. Populations that are persuaded that something is fair are also less inclined to declare war.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
Wage labour is usually the biggest factor in the price, and increases in wage rates will lead to an increase in factory gate prices (in proportion to how the cost of wages makes up the unit price).

No wages are ‘A’ factor in the price.As I said a 10% increase in wages doesn’t ( shouldn’t ) mean a 10% increase in overall factory gate unit price.But it does mean closer to a 10% increase in disposable income level therefore economic growth which means more demand and higher employment levels.

I agree with you really, but where wages aren’t the main factor, that implies that rents are the main factor, and regardless the fundamental point is that this works by redistributing purchasing power from rentiers to workers.

If rents stay still, general wages increase 10%, and general prices increase 2% (because rent is the dominant component of price), workers have more purchasing power than before, whilst rentiers have less.
The same is true if wages increase 10% and prices 9% (because wages are the dominant component of price).

As well as rents, holders of uninvested capital (cash savings) also suffer in this process. Capitalists, who live off rents and have the largest capital reserves suffer most, whilst the poorest workers with no savings gain most.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
As for Germany and the rest of the EEC states being that stupid against us,for the crime of telling them to do one,our oil is for us to use not them and our national sovereignty is non negotiable yeah right bring it on. Meanwhile at least you’ve explained the real agenda behind Wilson’s and Callaghan’s support for our EU membership in the 1975.

What you haven’t clocked is that I’m not speculating here, I’m describing the tensions that, unchecked in Europe, led to two world wars in 25 years.

I’m also only using oil as an example. The reality is that there are many basic things that have to move around the world across old national borders.

IE Socialist ideology that those who have something that others want have to appease those others by giving them what they want because of the fears within their own bat zb crazy paranoid heads resulting from judging everyone by those same standards.Those standards being a world without borders and if you want something that another country has you just walk in and take it and/or that country and its people as a whole.

It’s not about appeasement, it’s about sharing and trading natural resources on some basis that both sides accept is equitable, and about having effective representation in political arenas which do ultimately have the power to declare war.

Nationalist governments (and their electors) are prone to discount the effects of their policies on their neighbours (partly because they don’t even conceive the question as asking what is a fair settlement between the two, but by both sides each asking what is best for themselves alone).

By having representatives elected by and accountable to both sides, we know politicians tend to approach the problem differently. Populations that are persuaded that something is fair are also less inclined to declare war.

Firstly as I said taking away people’s right to national self determination and democracy and replacing it with foreign centralised rule is more likely to result in war not less.While the situation of a self sufficient oil producer coming out of an Arab imposed oil embargo with a worse financial impact and deal than non oil producer Germany doesn’t exactly fit the description of ‘equitable’.As for the idea of open borders in what’s our’s is the EU’s,or China’s,and what’s Germany’s is Germany’s you’re avin a larf.

The fact is if we’ve got a valuable resource within our own national territorial boundaries then we should keep that for ourselves to make ‘our’ lives easier not that of our competitors.While if anyone else in any other country can’t deal with that and thinks they’ll just take it then that’s why we have the forces to defend ourselves.In just the same way that Germany keeps the revenues earn’t from its manufacturing industry to make Germans richer not Greeks ( or Brits ).

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:
Wage labour is usually the biggest factor in the price, and increases in wage rates will lead to an increase in factory gate prices (in proportion to how the cost of wages makes up the unit price).

No wages are ‘A’ factor in the price.As I said a 10% increase in wages doesn’t ( shouldn’t ) mean a 10% increase in overall factory gate unit price.But it does mean closer to a 10% increase in disposable income level therefore economic growth which means more demand and higher employment levels.

I agree with you really, but where wages aren’t the main factor, that implies that rents are the main factor, and regardless the fundamental point is that this works by redistributing purchasing power from rentiers to workers.

If rents stay still, general wages increase 10%, and general prices increase 2% (because rent is the dominant component of price), workers have more purchasing power than before, whilst rentiers have less.
The same is true if wages increase 10% and prices 9% (because wages are the dominant component of price).

As well as rents, holders of uninvested capital (cash savings) also suffer in this process. Capitalists, who live off rents and have the largest capital reserves suffer most, whilst the poorest workers with no savings gain most.

The gap between the effects of a 10% increase on wages on disposable incomes as opposed to housing costs or factory gate prices is a lot better than 1%.

Meanwhile we’ve got the example of where Callaghan’s bs exploitative unlimited prices and limited incomes and open borders and trade with the EU has got us.

IE stagnant economic growth caused by lack of consumer spending power.

Massive national debt caused by an unsustainable trade deficit and resulting de industrialisation in favour of EU producers.

Incomes dropping behind prices in real terms.

The need for in work benefits to top up income levels to a basic standard.

The indigenous workforce having to compete for what work and limited wages we’ve got left,with EU immigrant workers.Mostly based on economic migration from East Euro states soon to be joined by Asia in the form of Turkey.Thereby putting even more downward pressure on wage levels.

More demand for social provision with reduced tax revenues to pay for it.

As I said the quicker we get that protectionist Nationalist Labour split and breakaway the better.While the Socialists and Blairites obviously know that the writing is on the wall for the Party in that regard.While the Socialist reasoning behind its position,which you’re putting up here,can only help in that process.

[winseer]

There was never any need for any EU nation to “pay” to have “access to the free market”.

Either we trade for free with each other - or we have a mutual embargo. Either way, the EU project is FINISHED as it’s been exposed as being totally unnecessary.

EU rules on “quality of goods” needs to be replaced by an extended version of what applies to actual cash crops and other commodities.

We don’t give a toss about straight bananas, correctly sized strawberries, and fair trade sugar.
The quality rules already in place for the world’s commodities will do nicely for defining “quality of the deliverable unit”.

If the EU or any country within it - doesn’t wish to follow our standards of quality - then they are not obliged to buy.

How many people in the world routinely turn down access to a cheaper, but barely lower standard of anything at all?

If you can pay 100 units to buy something of 98% quality, then you’ll JUMP at the chance of paying 40 units to buy 95% quality… Assuming you’ve got half a brain to work that out.

Yes, you can manage on that amount of grey matter…

[carryfast]

Winseer:
There was never any need for any EU nation to “pay” to have “access to the free market”.

Either we trade for free with each other - or we have a mutual embargo. Either way, the EU project is FINISHED as it’s been exposed as being totally unnecessary.

EU rules on “quality of goods” needs to be replaced by an extended version of what applies to actual cash crops and other commodities.

We don’t give a toss about straight bananas, correctly sized strawberries, and fair trade sugar.
The quality rules already in place for the world’s commodities will do nicely for defining “quality of the deliverable unit”.

If the EU or any country within it - doesn’t wish to follow our standards of quality - then they are not obliged to buy.

How many people in the world routinely turn down access to a cheaper, but barely lower standard of anything at all?

If you can pay 100 units to buy something of 98% quality, then you’ll JUMP at the chance of paying 40 units to buy 95% quality… Assuming you’ve got half a brain to work that out.

The bit that bothers me about the bs ‘free trade’ angle is the idea that we import zb quality African or Argentine beef for example thereby either leaving our own beef farmers to go out of business or exporting the better quality domestic product while we’re left with lower quality imports.On that note no thanks,yet again it ( should be ) all about the protectionist aspect of reducing such pointless regressive ‘trade’ not adding to it or returning to it.Also bearing in mind that in many cases such ‘trade’ means us taking food supplies out of less developed areas like Africa etc where those supplies are more needed for the local population.Which is a similar situation to the so called ‘potato famine’ in Ireland.In which people weren’t starving because of the potato blight they were starving because we were exporting Irish beef instead of keeping at home to feed the domestic population.

On that note leaving the EU to reduce EU imports fine.But not to replace domestic agricultural products with cheaper non EU imports.Especially when such imports can mean the possibility of leaving the domestic population of the exporting countries to go hungry and/or affecting domestic agriculture producers.Or lumbering us with lower quality imports while better quality domestic products are exported.

[winseer]

If it is a commodity - there is a set standard that represents the actual traded contract. If I buy a contract of Arabica Coffee now, or in a few month’s time - that quality is assured. If I require a specialist “premium” coffee like Costa Rica rather than the more standard Brazillian blend - then I can opt to pay that premium or not.

What I CANNOT do is dictate to the market that I want to buy coffee from a nation that doesn’t produce it and for less money that I’d normally buy it via a middleman that orginally DOES come from a nation that produced it.

The EU makes more money from selling it’s goods to us than we make selling ours to them.
To have full access to the free market therefore - we can either allow this arrangement of bilateral trade to continue unabated, and just cease paying the membership fee.
If the EU feels that “not paying the fee gets us put on embargo” - then we close the doors to their stuff being flogged to us.
THEY lose a lot more than we do - especially as “our” goods can be then re-directed to another buyer - so we in fact GAIN overall.
Their goods though?

What with the recent car scandals in America - I would guess that if Germany cannot sell their cars to the UK - then where else are they going to sell them?
EU cars have got a bad name in the states as it stands… It’s “sell to the UK - or don’t shift them” then!

If we want it for free - we only have to hold out until we GET it for free.
Once other EU nations see us succeed in this - they will all want the same of course, and Brussels is damned from lack of new cash inflows.

Possession is nine tenths of the law. We win the moment we stop paying. There is no effective retaliation that the EU can make upon us that is not an act of war by this point. Forget “Punishment” then. It ain’t gonna happen because it can’t. Have faith in everyone’s reluctance to start WWIII here.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
The EU makes more money from selling it’s goods to us than we make selling ours to them.
To have full access to the free market therefore - we can either allow this arrangement of bilateral trade to continue unabated, and just cease paying the membership fee.
If the EU feels that “not paying the fee gets us put on embargo” - then we close the doors to their stuff being flogged to us.
THEY lose a lot more than we do - especially as “our” goods can be then re-directed to another buyer - so we in fact GAIN overall.
Their goods though?

What with the recent car scandals in America - I would guess that if Germany cannot sell their cars to the UK - then where else are they going to sell them?
EU cars have got a bad name in the states as it stands… It’s “sell to the UK - or don’t shift them” then!

If we want it for free - we only have to hold out until we GET it for free.
Once other EU nations see us succeed in this - they will all want the same of course, and Brussels is damned from lack of new cash inflows.

Possession is nine tenths of the law. We win the moment we stop paying. There is no effective retaliation that the EU can make upon us that is not an act of war by this point. Forget “Punishment” then. It ain’t gonna happen because it can’t. Have faith in everyone’s reluctance to start WWIII here.

That’s what I’ve been saying since Dolph started shouting for the EU to kick off a trade war with us to punish us for daring to secede from his commy zb pile.

While in fact I’d go further in saying that any trade deal that ‘doesn’t’ bilaterally ‘allow’ either side,to reserve the right to impose trade barriers,to maintain trade ‘balance’ isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.Bearing in mind it’s in no one’s interests to put either side into debt through unsustainable trade deficits and surpluses.On that note the ‘single market’,in addition to being a liability regards sovereignty and net contributions,was and is also a liability in itself.Which only works as a type of foreign aid scam to make Germany rich at its customers’ expense. Realistically at this point if it was a decent Nationalist administration we’d just tear up article 50 and refuse to honour it and just walk away and don’t look back. As opposed to the grovelling quisling anti democratic Federalist bunch of zb’s who are actually running the country.

[winseer]

Trade breaks down when one side tries to impose anything at all on the other which they don’t agree with - including the price itself.

Price discovery happens - or trade does NOT happen then.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
Nationalist governments (and their electors) are prone to discount the effects of their policies on their neighbours (partly because they don’t even conceive the question as asking what is a fair settlement between the two, but by both sides each asking what is best for themselves alone).

By having representatives elected by and accountable to both sides, we know politicians tend to approach the problem differently. Populations that are persuaded that something is fair are also less inclined to declare war.

Firstly as I said taking away people’s right to national self determination and democracy and replacing it with foreign centralised rule is more likely to result in war not less.

Europe pre-WW2 really never stopped going to war over hundreds of years except to pause for breath, and very frequently it was at war around the wider world too. I couldn’t imagine a central government being able to survive so much civil war on the same scale, when its whole raison d’etre is to prevent it.

I should add that central government is not necessarily anti-democratic. It’s just that your would-be enemies have as much representation there as you do, so first you have to sit and listen to the hardships your plans will cause to them, and secondly any proposal for military aggression is likely to be voted down. And it cuts the other way too, when your would-be enemies are advancing a policy harmful to you.

While the situation of a self sufficient oil producer coming out of an Arab imposed oil embargo with a worse financial impact and deal than non oil producer Germany doesn’t exactly fit the description of ‘equitable’.

You’re referring to the 1973 oil shock.

The essential reason why British oil continued to be marketed was because oil companies achieve higher prices if international buyers are able to compete for the goods - domestic buyers can still outbid international buyers, but only by paying more, which they often won’t or can’t. Free marketeers always say this is should achieve an “efficient” distribution of goods, but that is only true if markets are perfect and all buyers have the same means to purchase the goods.

The reality is the economy needs political direction to mediate “fair” claims on the shortage goods, not market forces which usually just leads to the rich getting everything they want (even that which they could do without) and the poor failing to get what they need.

The unilateral political direction that shortage goods will be kept inside national borders, obviously runs the risk that there is no democratic representation of many of those in other nations who will be deprived of the goods, and nor is there any recognition that they may have uses for the goods that are obviously better and fairer than some of our uses (our rich, for example, may continue to burn oil to heat their homes or jet-set around the world in aeroplanes, whilst German doctors and nurses are struggling to find fuel to run their cars to work).

In terms of why Germany came out of 1973 better, I suspect that reflected the better underlying condition of their economy and industrial relations going into the crisis.

As for the idea of open borders in what’s our’s is the EU’s,or China’s,and what’s Germany’s is Germany’s you’re avin a larf.

I’m not sure that reflects anything I’ve argued for. You can have internal borders, and states can and do implement measures which bias or determine where people live and work. I’m not really free to move to Central London to work, for example, because prices are so high - and high land prices are themselves supported by building restrictions implemented by the state, and my ability to park a caravan on the highway is policed, as is pitching a tent in a park, and so on.

The fact is if we’ve got a valuable resource within our own national territorial boundaries then we should keep that for ourselves to make ‘our’ lives easier not that of our competitors.While if anyone else in any other country can’t deal with that and thinks they’ll just take it then that’s why we have the forces to defend ourselves.In just the same way that Germany keeps the revenues earn’t from its manufacturing industry to make Germans richer not Greeks ( or Brits ).

But we’re trying to overcome those (on both sides) who think like this, because if we deal as competitors, and if there are no limits on the hardships we’ll impose on our competitors, then it eventually breaks out into open warfare as a form of competition (and bargaining), because the problems in both economies are so clearly caused or aggravated by the opponent of each, and the only chance that either have to survive is to vanquish the other (or at least severely impose upon the other).

Of course, nationalism could probably reach a steady state, and uneasy truce, if every nation had its own ample supply of all the economic resources it needs - but no nation does as current borders are drawn.

And like I say, it only takes that one single thing to come in from outside, and that thing constantly transmits seismic disruptions into the whole economy. Because if there is no state which controls that supply, then bandits can just take over the well or the mine or the factory, so we have to impose militarily on that land (and more than one nation might want to do this, to ensure that you don’t ‘claim’ the neutral territory as your own and gain unilateral control of the supply).

And if another state does control the supply of this ‘single outside thing’, and if they have the same competitive mentality, then they will squeeze you for every penny, or if two nations need the same supply then they’ll force you to bid each other up, and will make every extreme demand of you backed up by threats to turn off the supply. Or, if the same resource is actually useful to them, they will prioritise its use internally and give you nothing simply because there is nothing ‘spare’ to give once they have taken care of every trivial internal use they have for it.

This mentality produces a world in which every question comes down to whether states are willing to go to total war to protect their interests. That was permissible in the days when states only had cannonballs, it doesn’t work with nuclear weapons.

It’s like the difference between children and adults - children are robust and weak, and not very imaginative, so even if their childish thinking causes disputes, we can tolerate them physically fighting even if they are in a blind rage with each other, as long as it doesn’t happen so often that they learn where the knife drawer is.

It’s not the same when grown fellas are under relentless imperatives to start a fight to the death with no rules between them, with no foundation of cooperation, no willingness to compromise, no point at which they both put their hands up and say “ok, we’ll share”. Even Ronnie Kray stopped short of burning Lennie Hamilton’s eyes out with red hot pokers, and he wasn’t our foreign minister, you know?

It’s serious business, and politicians have to have it in their heads that they’re not competing over oil, or minerals, or whatever, they’re there to decide a basis for distributing those goods which is fair and acceptable to both sides. If what they come up with is truly not fair, then that’s a problem, which might even be solved by threatening to compete with the other side or even giving them a taste of competitive medicine, but it’s not solved by adopting war and competition as a permanent mentality.

The real truth about the EU is not that it’s unfair to nations (although there has to be a point, as with Greece, where even bad behaviour or profligacy, is forgiven, the price of which is more supervision of Greece in future), but that it’s combination of policies (like the free market in wages and free movement) have turned out to be unfair between the classes or even between wage-earners of the same class.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
The gap between the effects of a 10% increase on wages on disposable incomes as opposed to housing costs or factory gate prices is a lot better than 1%.

I agree, redistribution depends on how unequal the distribution is in the first place, and it has diminishing returns - eventually the rich have nothing left to give and rentiers are living on a shoe string (or go out of business, and have their rent claims extinguished).

I’m just very surprised to hear you advancing this seemingly socialist policy!

Or are you really advancing that horrible synthesis, “National Socialism”?

[carryfast]

Winseer:
Trade breaks down when one side tries to impose anything at all on the other which they don’t agree with - including the price itself.

Price discovery happens - or trade does NOT happen then.

Trade breaks down when you don’t apply controls to enforce trade balance.Simply because such trade inbalance is unsustainable and eventually breaks the economy on the deficit side of the equation.Thereby also ending up with the surplus side eventually losing its export market.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
The gap between the effects of a 10% increase on wages on disposable incomes as opposed to housing costs or factory gate prices is a lot better than 1%.

I agree, redistribution depends on how unequal the distribution is in the first place, and it has diminishing returns - eventually the rich have nothing left to give and rentiers are living on a shoe string (or go out of business, and have their rent claims extinguished).

I’m just very surprised to hear you advancing this seemingly socialist policy!

Or are you really advancing that horrible synthesis, “National Socialism”?

No as I’ve said by definition there can be no link between Socialism and Nationalism.As we’ve seen in our arguments they are two totally opposing ideologies.On that note how do you make the 2 + 2 + 5 jump from Nationalist Protectionist Fordist Capitalist economic principles to ■■■■.

IE,like Hitler,it’s Socialist ideology that’s saying let’s ignore the right to self determination and National sovereignty in favour of Reich or Soviet type ‘Union’ and let’s apply limits to what we’re prepared to accept in terms of living standards for the working class.You know like the working class being limited to a state allocated Volkswagen Beetle because the employers supposedly can’t afford to provide more and anything better would be considered as decadence anyway.

On that note as I said there are no so called ‘diminishing returns’ in the Fordist ‘CAPITALIST’ system.As proven by 1960’s US.The better the wages the more and better stuff the workers can afford to buy with the resulting higher disposable incomes.Meaning more workers needed to provide it etc etc etc etc etc.

As opposed to 1920’s/30’s non Fordist Capitalist US economies.Or for that matter any zb Socialist system whether it be Hitler’s version or Stalin’s version or Mao’s version.

[tommy_t]

An end to all these begging adverts on tv like the unicef ones, we as a country already donate more than any other EU country we give billions of pounds , why the F should anyone give any of their hard earned ? sick of the bs, and another thing i’m sick of is this illusion that our economy is booming , but central government is still rolling out cuts to local governments and front line services ? surely if we as a country were doing as well as the tripe spouted by government and their media( paid) sheep there would be expenditure and not cuts

[rjan]

tommy t:
An end to all these begging adverts on tv like the unicef ones, we as a country already donate more than any other EU country we give billions of pounds , why the F should anyone give any of their hard earned ? sick of the bs, and another thing i’m sick of is this illusion that our economy is booming , but central government is still rolling out cuts to local governments and front line services ? surely if we as a country were doing as well as the tripe spouted by government and their media( paid) sheep there would be expenditure and not cuts

Is it really so hard to understand that our economy is doing pretty well, for the rich? Is it so hard to understand they’re making cuts not (as they say) because they have to, but because they want to?

Think about it, is there a single day in your life, when you’ve gone into work and found a gaggle of managers or owners pondering the question of how they can put your wages up or ease your burden at the expense of their profits? How they can compress their pay scales instead of expanding them? How they can pay their fair share of taxes instead of devious schemes to pay little or nothing?

Do you really think wealthy men who put two fingers up to the EU and begrudge “giving away their money”, are any keener to give a great deal of “their” money away to their employees or good causes? Do you think they want to pay for potholes or council houses, instead of their X5s and country piles?

Why is it that when it comes to Britishness, the mentality of these people with influence and control throughout our society, suddenly gets thrown into reverse and they start asking not how much they can get out of Britain, but how much they can put in?

What good works can Mike Ashley point to, that even begins to offset the squalid conditions of his factories and the grotesque personal wealth he’s accrued from it?

[carryfast]

Rjan:
Think about it, is there a single day in your life, when you’ve gone into work and found a gaggle of managers or owners pondering the question of how they can put your wages up or ease your burden at the expense of their profits?

Ironically,as your comments have shown,the idea that more wages means less profits seems to be more in the heads of the Socialists,like those running the Chinese Communist Party or historically at home like Jim Callaghan and Denis Healey and their non Fordist Capitalist allies,than anyone with any basic grasp of economics.You know people like Eisenhower and Kennedy and the heads of 1960’s US industry.