Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

[Tony 10]

13 hours ago, L00b said:

I don't really know, since displaying fresh produce's country of origin has been the way of the supermarket retail world for decades, come to think of it...

 

(and that state of affairs might even have come as a result of EU consumer-related law, though I could well be wrong about that and, but for the irony of it if that was the case, it' just about (90 days-ish) moot by now anyway)

 

There is, of course, a surge in nationalism which UK retailers <of any wares> could exploit well in months and even years to come, as Johnson's government trumpets the EU-to-blame narrative ever louder, wherein 'not from the EU' stickers could yield a nice, fatter profit margin on anything non-EU irrespective of economical and/or qualitatitve merit relative to the EU alternative. More power to such retailers if they can pull it off, says I.

 

Makes EU27 produce not exported to the UK cheaper for EU27 consumers due to overproduction. Cheaper Brazilian beef for Brits, cheaper Irish beef for europeans, everybody wins 

We're about to drift into one of my areas of interest - localism, or "nationalism" as you might accidentally badge it. 

 

Motivation for buying locally - and I mean as locally as possible - should be developed and encouraged. That's going to be especially relevant in the next couple of years with the after effects of Covid 19 in economically underperforming areas such as Sheffield. The value of a local pound to the local economy is much higher when people choose to buy from local suppliers, preferably selling locally produced goods. In short, £1 can be worth as much as £6-7 when it's respent locally.

 

For example; buy a newspaper from your local newsagent instead of WH Smith. Definitely don't have an  online subscription instead. That £1 spent in your local family newsagent goes directly into the proprietor's family budget. They respend a larger proportion of that £1 in other local businesses, putting it into local wage packets, who respend it again, and the process keeps repeating. Eventually that £1 breaks down and leaks out into the regional, then the national, then the international economy.

 

Buying your paper at WH Smith sends 95p straight to WHS PLC in London. 5p is retained locally via wages  of and the government in London takes 2p back in taxes leaving. 3p of your £1 locally.

 

Buying an online subscription to the Yorkshire Post (as fine an organ as it is) sends £1 to Johnston Press PLC in London, who send back 5p for local staff before HMG takes 2p back in taxes. 3p of your £1 stays in the local economy.

 

That's why people are kidded into believing that London is "the engine room of the UK economy" when the reality is that it is sucking local money out of local people's pocket and handing back a few buttons.

 

The New Economic Foundation did some excellent work on this a few years ago and even went as far as producing tools that can be used by business and the public sector buyers to focus that respend into the local economy. It's definitely not nationalism though, it's just good sense.

 

Here endeth the lesson

[Tony 10]

12 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

That sounds good for the planet.

Anything from 5 to 9m adults in this country are functionally illiterate.

We have limits on state aid because of the freshly signed Japan trade deal. Link a page or two back.

 

1. I'm all for home-grown produce and as short a field to plate distance as possible. My dad grows fabulous onions. Some years. 

2. Terrible isn't it? You'd approve of some sort of big logo on produce then? Onion A has a union jack with 100% on it, Onion B has a union Jack with "0% British" above a Spanish flag with "100% Spain". 

3. I *think* you're misrepresenting it a tad. The important mutual restrictions are around open ended state aid which isn't at all unreasonable. Otherwise, Honda could send free components (courtesy of Japanese state aid) to be fitted in UK built cars to undercut UK made companants. It doesn't preclude state aid at all.

[L00b 441]

42 minutes ago, Tony said:

We're about to drift into one of my areas of interest - localism, or "nationalism" as you might accidentally badge it. 

 

<...>

 

Here endeth the lesson

Don't presume to teach me about Keynesian economics privileging homespun goods and financial isolationism. It was taught in schools decades ago, and I was paying attention.

 

The solution to the ills of globalisation, does not lie in autarky. It lies in better-coordinated governance by ever-more accountable governments.

[tzijlstra 11]

1 hour ago, Tony said:

We're about to drift into one of my areas of interest - localism, or "nationalism" as you might accidentally badge it. 

 

Motivation for buying locally - and I mean as locally as possible - should be developed and encouraged. That's going to be especially relevant in the next couple of years with the after effects of Covid 19 in economically underperforming areas such as Sheffield. The value of a local pound to the local economy is much higher when people choose to buy from local suppliers, preferably selling locally produced goods. In short, £1 can be worth as much as £6-7 when it's respent locally.

 

For example; buy a newspaper from your local newsagent instead of WH Smith. Definitely don't have an  online subscription instead. That £1 spent in your local family newsagent goes directly into the proprietor's family budget. They respend a larger proportion of that £1 in other local businesses, putting it into local wage packets, who respend it again, and the process keeps repeating. Eventually that £1 breaks down and leaks out into the regional, then the national, then the international economy.

 

Buying your paper at WH Smith sends 95p straight to WHS PLC in London. 5p is retained locally via wages  of and the government in London takes 2p back in taxes leaving. 3p of your £1 locally.

 

Buying an online subscription to the Yorkshire Post (as fine an organ as it is) sends £1 to Johnston Press PLC in London, who send back 5p for local staff before HMG takes 2p back in taxes. 3p of your £1 stays in the local economy.

 

That's why people are kidded into believing that London is "the engine room of the UK economy" when the reality is that it is sucking local money out of local people's pocket and handing back a few buttons.

 

The New Economic Foundation did some excellent work on this a few years ago and even went as far as producing tools that can be used by business and the public sector buyers to focus that respend into the local economy. It's definitely not nationalism though, it's just good sense.

 

Here endeth the lesson

Just as a matter of interest, I'll try and dissect how this relates to Brexit, as it invalidates the argument for Brexit. 

 

The theory of localism only works provided there is:

 

A) No global market and no demand in the local market for products only available on the global market, or: 

B) Abundant resources in the local market to enable production of all core products in demand, or:

C) Purchasing power at least equal to or better than competing 'localities'. 

 

A - we know is false, there is a global market and there is demand for products on that market. 

C - we know is going to be impacted by introduction of tariffs 

 

So B is the one of interest and the area where Brexiteers pin their hopes: We are apparently going to diversify our economy, rebuild manufacturing and become a proud exporting nation (once this rebuild is finished). 

 

That than leaves a few questions that I am sure you will provide a full answer to: 

 

B1: Where is the workforce coming from? There is scarcity on the job market as is. 

B2: Where are the resources coming from? The UK will be competing for raw resources with the likes of China, US, EU, India and many others. 

B3: Is the market here big enough to warrant investment of IP by multinationals? In other words, why would Nissan maintain their production capacity in Sunderland, knowing that it only sells 20% of cars manufactured in Sunderland in the UK? 

B4: How are locally produced products going to be competitive when the supply chain has now been extended to include waiting times at borders, bureaucratic checks and so on? 

 

Pedagogically a good lesson is one that raises questions and triggers critical debate, not one whereby a flawed theory is spelled out as fact. So once again, I am looking forward to the answers. 

[tinfoilhat 11]

7 hours ago, Tony said:

1. I'm all for home-grown produce and as short a field to plate distance as possible. My dad grows fabulous onions. Some years. 

2. Terrible isn't it? You'd approve of some sort of big logo on produce then? Onion A has a union jack with 100% on it, Onion B has a union Jack with "0% British" above a Spanish flag with "100% Spain". 

3. I *think* you're misrepresenting it a tad. The important mutual restrictions are around open ended state aid which isn't at all unreasonable. Otherwise, Honda could send free components (courtesy of Japanese state aid) to be fitted in UK built cars to undercut UK made companants. It doesn't preclude state aid at all.

Doesn't preclude it, but is a restriction that - as I understand it - more restrictive than the EU one.

 

I'm all for localism. Not much of it about sadly. Happy for thwacking great stickers on where things are produced and how they've been transported (air or ship) - I believe M&S were kicking that idea about for a bit. Most won't pay any attention, and we might find Its a bit of a problem for any trade deal with our friends in America.

[Car Boot 10]

If sending local money to London is bad, just imagine how terrible sending money further away to Brussels truly is!

 

Decentralise power, wealth and arms away from the centres of control and give them to the people!

[andyofborg 11]

15 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Decentralise power, wealth and arms away from the centres of control and give them to the people!

What if the people don't want them?

[Magilla 510]

18 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

If sending local money to London is bad, just imagine how terrible sending money further away to Brussels truly is!

Turns out, it's far far cheaper than sending it to London...

 

...plus, you get more benefits and a better service

[Car Boot 10]

6 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Turns out, it's far far cheaper than sending it to London...

 

...plus, you get more benefits and a better service

Did the EU fund the NHS? Our state pensions? Benefit system? Education?

 

Or did the EU give us inflated prices, a fig leaf parliament that inhabits two countries and an extremely expensive bureaucracy?

[Magilla 510]

15 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Did the EU fund the NHS? Our state pensions? Benefit system? Education?

Since EU membership provided significant cost savings across the board compared to going it alone... it certainly helped... so yes, in part.

 

Quote

Or did the EU give us inflated prices

No...

 

Quote

a fig leaf parliament that inhabits two countries and an extremely expensive bureaucracy?

Which, as above... turns out is far far less expensive, for a better service and benefits, than going it alone

Edited October 6, 2020 by Magilla

[Car Boot 10]

57 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Since EU membership provided significant cost savings across the board compared to going it alone... it certainly helped... so yes, in part.

 

No...

 

Which, as above... turns out is far far less expensive, for a better service and benefits, than going it alone

You're defending the expense and environmental damage caused by the fig leaf EU Parliament?

 

Auditors say moving MEPs and their staff from Belgium to France costs at least €114 million per year. It's not just the costs accrued by the monthly relocation but the environmental damage caused by the transportation of thousands of parliament officials, political groups, parliamentary assistants and freelance interpreters and paperwork that is transported by truck between the locations.

 

Better Off Out.

 

Give me the good old British Civil Service any day over the wasteful, expensive Eurocrats.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Car Boot

[tzijlstra 11]

8 hours ago, tzijlstra said:

Just as a matter of interest, I'll try and dissect how this relates to Brexit, as it invalidates the argument for Brexit. 

 

The theory of localism only works provided there is:

 

A) No global market and no demand in the local market for products only available on the global market, or: 

B) Abundant resources in the local market to enable production of all core products in demand, or:

C) Purchasing power at least equal to or better than competing 'localities'. 

 

A - we know is false, there is a global market and there is demand for products on that market. 

C - we know is going to be impacted by introduction of tariffs 

 

So B is the one of interest and the area where Brexiteers pin their hopes: We are apparently going to diversify our economy, rebuild manufacturing and become a proud exporting nation (once this rebuild is finished). 

 

That than leaves a few questions that I am sure you will provide a full answer to: 

 

B1: Where is the workforce coming from? There is scarcity on the job market as is. 

B2: Where are the resources coming from? The UK will be competing for raw resources with the likes of China, US, EU, India and many others. 

B3: Is the market here big enough to warrant investment of IP by multinationals? In other words, why would Nissan maintain their production capacity in Sunderland, knowing that it only sells 20% of cars manufactured in Sunderland in the UK? 

B4: How are locally produced products going to be competitive when the supply chain has now been extended to include waiting times at borders, bureaucratic checks and so on? 

 

Pedagogically a good lesson is one that raises questions and triggers critical debate, not one whereby a flawed theory is spelled out as fact. So once again, I am looking forward to the answers. 

So Tony,  care to provide answers to the above questions? Or are you really a bit like Car Boot, avoiding the points of criticism you can't deal with and yelling one-liners instead?