Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
By Woody2Shoes
#1306058
doctor Bob wrote:
Woody2Shoes wrote:
Hallelujah Amen....

My question to those who voted leave is simply - 'what was it - in your daily life - that was so bad, and that was directly attributable to our membership of the EU, that made you want to put up with huge disruption and uncertainty, on a national scale, over many years, in order to leave. What was that burning issue?' FIIK BTW


Putting it simply, I had a very nice life prior to setting up a business and could have carried on as I was. However I choose to jack in my nice safe job and start a business where I knew times would be hard for a few years with very / no existing clients or trade agreements. Over the years my business has improved as has my client base, I now deal with a far wider and broader client base than my previous employer and reap the rewards of a very diverse base. My boss was tied to local clients as he refused to travel. My salary has increased by many multiples, I have a much better client relationship and my lifestyle is beyond compare of being employed. I'm also not under control of a ruling boss, I explore which way I want the company to go on a regular basis, if something isn't working I simply stop doing it rather than being told by my boss to keep doing it. I treat my employees better than I was treated.

I can see why people don't start business or don't want to, settled in a rut, don't want the risk, don't want to have more control, keep it as is, don't want to upset existing boss / wife / family, or simply scared of the risk. No issues with that. My parents and wife, begged me not to leave my job, told me all sorts of doom mongery stories almost frightening me with negative stuff and fear. Of course they painted the worse picture to dissuade me but I saw through it, I knew I could do it. My boss also told me I would fail on my own, funnily enough his business went bust 3 years after I left.
From speaking to people I know typically the type of person who voted to remain, certainly not like me.
Not for me, I like opportunity and risk.

Subsitute job for EU above.

Some will say Arrrh but the above isn't the same as leaving the EU, to them I say "don't be a pillock" ........... I give you my reasons and I really don't give one toss what you bunch of wally's think, to be honest I haven't posted on here for a week due to being embarrassed by the remainer posts. People have actually described the situation we are in as delicious, couldn't wait for us to slip into recession etc etc bloody ridiculous, leave or remain I really don't care I just want the country to succeed, if we remained I certainly wouldn't want the country to fall apart as some here hope for if we leave.
As I said some on here are a disgrace and show their true colours, others are so self obsessed with their own predicaments that they sound like parrots, repeating the same old twaddle over and over.

That's it, see you in a week or two, over to you lot to backslap and applaud each others posts, bunch of limp wristed wallies :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I'm delighted to hear you're making a success of your chosen career - you're probably the sort of person who would make a success of things in all sorts of different circumstances. Statistically though, most small businesses fail - and usually quite quickly.

If I've understood you correctly, your vote to leave was not because you expected leaving to solve any particular problem that was affecting you personally, but more because you saw leaving as some kind of adventurous departure into new 'sunlit uplands'?

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soc ... 0314124023
By Dibs-h
#1306095
Trainee neophyte wrote:
This comes down to what, actually, is "money", and where it comes from. Government currently uses interest rates and tax rates to manage the money supply - if they want more money velocity, they "give"you a tax cut, for example. They would reduce interest rates, except that they already have - interest rates being the value of money, the current value of money is zero. Even less than zero in eurozone :lol:


I'm genuinely not sure how the current value of money is zero or less that zero. Or do you mean rate of return, i.e. interest rates? They are close to zero and possibly below (or have been in the not to distant past).

Trainee neophyte wrote:Where does government get money from? There are three sources, because government actually has no money of its own. They can take it from the population (tax), they can borrow it (take it from future generations) and the third, sneaky one, is inflation, where they steal everyone's wealth, a little bit at a time.


Inflation is very clearly something else - "Inflation is a sustained rise in the general price level. Inflation can come from both the demand and the supply-side of an economy" - https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/refer ... -inflation

Trainee neophyte wrote:Now, what is money? It used to have real value, in the real world - gold/silver/land. Then it because a "promise" of gold/silver/land, then, finally it became entirely fiat - a made-up, agreed-upon thing of zero intrinsic value, which is created out of thin air as required.
I'm kinda with you on that - I'm not sure many currencies are "backed" by gold reserves any more, or not fully.

Trainee neophyte wrote:This being the case, why does government still borrow, when it could just create it's running costs out of thin air? If Barclays bank has the right to create new money when you raise a mortgage on a houses why can't the government create new money to pay government workers, at zero cost to me, everyone else, and the government (provided they don't create inflation)? Why do they have to take money from me, which I have exchanged for hours of work - hours of my life that I will never get back? As long as the money supply doesn't increase, there won't be inflation, and all will be good. We could have elections based on what government services would be supplied, at what cost, and what inflation rate would be deemed acceptable.


HMG has created it out of thin air - called Quantitative Easing.

"Quantitative easing involves us creating digital money." - https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetar ... ive-easing

Trainee neophyte wrote:
It's a theory, anyway.


Theories are usually plausible - or at least a little. :wink:
By Rich C
#1306100
Trainee neophyte wrote:Affording private education and private healthcare - 95% couldn't afford it - methinks hyperbole, or exaggeration for effect - exactly the sort of thing I would do :lol:

Bear in mind the currently squewed market makes private healthcare and education very expensive, because the government provides "free" alternatives. If there were no alternatives, the cost of healthcare would be much less than the current "value plus" model for the extra-wealthy. Don't think that all school fees would be at the same level as Eaton, just because Eaton fees are ludicrously high now. Eaton can afford to charge silly amounts because of too much money chasing a limited resource. If everyone had to pay, there would be choices and there would be more affordable options? If there weren't, the market would instantly create them. It would actually be cheaper to employ a full-time private tutor than pay Eaton fees, but then you wouldn't get to be part of the old-boy network, which is actually what the people are paying for.

Finally, most workers pay national insurance - you should be able to find some healthcare and education for a similar amount, if there was nothing else available.

Would the market actually create options for the lowest paid sector of society though? I think in the event that we had fully market driven healthcare the middle and upper classes would get something for a (to them) reasonable rate, but the cost of provisioning the working class would be greater than the amount they can pay. This is essentially how healthcare worked in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Given that no company in a market economy is going to run at a loss, you end up with a sizeable proportion of the population with no access to healthcare because they have been priced out of the market.

See also America - the lowest income sector of the population has to have government subsidised healthcare because the market doesn't provide an affordable solution otherwise.


Also, if the government just created money for everything it needed inflation would be very high. This sort of action is what sparked hyperinflation in the 20s in Germany.
By Jacob
#1306103
Rich C wrote:.......
See also America - the lowest income sector of the population has to have government subsidised healthcare because the market doesn't provide an affordable solution otherwise.
The USA subsidised component costs far more per capita than the UK NHS and is far less effective. It's another inefficient neo-liberal disaster.
Their market solution for the better off is astronomically expensive too.
Many states not only the UK have far better health care than USA. Cuba does better by far.
User avatar
By RogerS
#1306104
Rich C wrote:......
Would the market actually create options for the lowest paid sector of society though? ....


Not just the lowest paid if you are retired and getting on in years. Your premiums would go up and up and up. And most elderly eventually get ill and require more and more healthcare...pushing their premiums up to the point that even those on a reasonable (to some) pension would not be able to afford it.
User avatar
By RogerS
#1306106
Jacob wrote:...... It's another inefficient neo-liberal disaster.
.....


Oh, please stop posting these little soundbites that play to your bigotry. That is only one part of the equation. Had you bothered to do even the most basic of research then you would have come across this peer-reviewed research paper from NCBI.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21916090

Yes, money does come into it but so do several other equally important (if not more so) factors.

At present, the US healthcare system is of vital interest to the nation's economy and government policy (spending). The U.S. healthcare system is characterized as the world's most expensive yet least effective compared with other nations. Growing healthcare costs have made millions of citizens vulnerable. Major drivers of the healthcare costs are institutionalized medical practices and reimbursement policies, technology-induced costs and consumer behavior.
By Jacob
#1306113
RogerS wrote:
Jacob wrote:...... It's another inefficient neo-liberal disaster.
.....


Oh, please stop posting these little soundbites that play to your bigotry. That is only one part of the equation. Had you bothered to do even the most basic of research then you would have come across this peer-reviewed research paper from NCBI.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21916090

Yes, money does come into it but so do several other equally important (if not more so) factors.

At present, the US healthcare system is of vital interest to the nation's economy and government policy (spending). The U.S. healthcare system is characterized as the world's most expensive yet least effective compared with other nations. Growing healthcare costs have made millions of citizens vulnerable. Major drivers of the healthcare costs are institutionalized medical practices and reimbursement policies, technology-induced costs and consumer behavior.
Seems to be saying much the same. Have you actually read and understood what you quoted?
"Major drivers of the healthcare costs are ....... reimbursement policies" seems to be a tautology, what is missing is the explanation: it's due to free market (neo-liberal) reimbursement policies. :lol:
User avatar
By RogerS
#1306114
Jacob wrote:
RogerS wrote:
Jacob wrote:...... It's another inefficient neo-liberal disaster.
.....


Oh, please stop posting these little soundbites that play to your bigotry. That is only one part of the equation. Had you bothered to do even the most basic of research then you would have come across this peer-reviewed research paper from NCBI.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21916090

Yes, money does come into it but so do several other equally important (if not more so) factors.

At present, the US healthcare system is of vital interest to the nation's economy and government policy (spending). The U.S. healthcare system is characterized as the world's most expensive yet least effective compared with other nations. Growing healthcare costs have made millions of citizens vulnerable. Major drivers of the healthcare costs are institutionalized medical practices and reimbursement policies, technology-induced costs and consumer behavior.
Seems to be saying much the same. Have you actually read and understood what you quoted?
"Major drivers of the healthcare costs are ....... reimbursement policies" seems to be a tautology, what is missing is the explanation: it's due to free market (neo-liberal) reimbursement policies. :lol:


Please read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. I said 'Yes money does come into it.' ie your 'free-market' reimbursement policies.

You then conveniently ignored the three other points that I highlighted in BOLD for you.
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1306119
Dibs-h wrote:
Trainee neophyte wrote:
This comes down to what, actually, is "money", and where it comes from. Government currently uses interest rates and tax rates to manage the money supply - if they want more money velocity, they "give"you a tax cut, for example. They would reduce interest rates, except that they already have - interest rates being the value of money, the current value of money is zero. Even less than zero in eurozone :lol:


I'm genuinely not sure how the current value of money is zero or less that zero. Or do you mean rate of return, i.e. interest rates? They are close to zero and possibly below (or have been in the not to distant past).

Trainee neophyte wrote:Where does government get money from? There are three sources, because government actually has no money of its own. They can take it from the population (tax), they can borrow it (take it from future generations) and the third, sneaky one, is inflation, where they steal everyone's wealth, a little bit at a time.


Inflation is very clearly something else - "Inflation is a sustained rise in the general price level. Inflation can come from both the demand and the supply-side of an economy" - https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/refer ... -inflation

Trainee neophyte wrote:Now, what is money? It used to have real value, in the real world - gold/silver/land. Then it because a "promise" of gold/silver/land, then, finally it became entirely fiat - a made-up, agreed-upon thing of zero intrinsic value, which is created out of thin air as required.
I'm kinda with you on that - I'm not sure many currencies are "backed" by gold reserves any more, or not fully.

Trainee neophyte wrote:This being the case, why does government still borrow, when it could just create it's running costs out of thin air? If Barclays bank has the right to create new money when you raise a mortgage on a houses why can't the government create new money to pay government workers, at zero cost to me, everyone else, and the government (provided they don't create inflation)? Why do they have to take money from me, which I have exchanged for hours of work - hours of my life that I will never get back? As long as the money supply doesn't increase, there won't be inflation, and all will be good. We could have elections based on what government services would be supplied, at what cost, and what inflation rate would be deemed acceptable.


HMG has created it out of thin air - called Quantitative Easing.

"Quantitative easing involves us creating digital money." - https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetar ... ive-easing

Trainee neophyte wrote:
It's a theory, anyway.


Theories are usually plausible - or at least a little. :wink:


I should have said timevalue of money - a pound today is worth more than a pound next year, so if you lend me a pound, I will pay you interest during the loan, and then repay the pound at the end of the term. If interest rates are negative, I borrow a pound from you, and you are so keen to get rid of it that youpayme for the privilege of taking your money off your hands. What sort of time preference value can you put on that? How insane is that as a system. Apparently there is a Danish mortgage where you borrow €100,000, pay zero for ten years, and then repay LESS than €100,000. And somehow, the bank still makes a profit on this. As I said, the value of money is now, at the very least questionable, and tending towards zero. More importantly, how do you know?

Here is another definition of inflation, almost the same as yours:
Inflation is the devaluation of a currency marked by a sustained trend of rising prices in the economy. In other words, the value of each dollar is less, which causes the general price of goods to increase. This is typically caused by an increase in the money supply relative to economic activity.


Any currency that is actually backed by real gold gets destroyed before it gets off the ground. Conspiracy tin foil hat wearers believe that Gaddafi's plan to create a Pan-African, gold-backed currency was the reason he was singled out for Clinton attention. I am not advocating the theory, just noting that it exists: https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/ ... ted-dollar As far as I am aware, no currency is backed by gold, although that may change soon, if other conspiracy theory nutters are to be believed.

Quantitative easing is pulling money out of your pineapple, yes, but in a convoluted and complicated way:
Quantitative easing involves the creation of electronic money by the Bank of England to purchase gilts from the financial sector. In theory, this should increase the money supply.
Note the use of the "in theory". In practice, it made a very small number of people, closest to the supply of new money, fabulously wealthy. Everyone else, not at all. What I am advocating would be more like Modern Monetary Theory, except I would take away the banks' right to create money - they can go back to being old fashioned building society type lenders. Anyone who actually advocates MMT is admitting the economy has failed, and it needs a huge injection of free money, given to the serfs. Frankly, if the elite are giving away money to the slaves, it has all gone wrong.

The current system is mad, based on 17th century ideas which are no longer relevant, but enriching a tiny elite to a level they haven't seen since the 17th century. Yet another conspiracy theory: hey are setting up the current lunacy to fail, so that a world currency can be put in place, to make sure we are all slaves forever. The idea has been knocking around for a while, but it looks like the implementation is running just a tad late.
Image
By Jacob
#1306122
Trainee neophyte wrote:..... Frankly, if the elite are giving away money to the slaves, it has all gone wrong.....
T'other way round surely?
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1306123
RogerS wrote:TN...you've never had to 'play' the Great Carnet Game, have you ? Otherwise you'd understand the benefits of trading as a member of the EU.


No, I haven't. Took me a while to find out what it was, too. The good news is that, once you get your goods into the EU, it's in. Their single market works in your favour. Just the one big shiny border to play with.

How hard could it be?
User avatar
By Trainee neophyte
#1306124
Jacob wrote:
Trainee neophyte wrote:..... Frankly, if the elite are giving away money to the slaves, it has all gone wrong.....
T'other way round surely?


Umm...don't we all give money away to the "elite", all the time? Tax, inflation, unnecessarily high housing costs, unnecessarily low wages, etc, so on and so forth. They even let you keep some of your hard earned money, so you won't complain too much.
By Jacob
#1306126
Trainee neophyte wrote:
Jacob wrote:
Trainee neophyte wrote:..... Frankly, if the elite are giving away money to the slaves, it has all gone wrong.....
T'other way round surely?


Umm...don't we all give money away to the "elite", all the time? Tax, inflation, unnecessarily high housing costs, unnecessarily low wages, etc, so on and so forth. They even let you keep some of your hard earned money, so you won't complain too much.

Which "elite" are you on about? Not sure what you are trying to say.
User avatar
By finneyb
#1306135
Jacob wrote:UK NHS is still widely seen as one of the most cost effective in the world.

Agreed.
The UK system is effectively a universal compulsory insurance premium ie we have no choice to pay or not, as its thro taxation. It's the universal compulsory bit that makes it work.
What was happening in US is that the younger people skipped the health insurance until they got older - and therefore were not putting into the pot in their good years. Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) then came along and required all to have an insurance policy or be fined. Sounds good but isn't - the cheaper end of the insurance market also have large co-pays so are next to useless if you are on low wages. If you can't afford the co-pay you aren't treated, but have paid the insurance premium.

In the news today we have cancer survival rates with UK coming near the bottom. Need to be careful here the measure is survival after 1 year and after 5 years, so if you diagnose early it is far easier to meet the survival targets - known as Lead time bias - without any effect on lifetime, except of course that you are inconvenienced longer by the treatment because it starts earlier.

eg In US 81% diagnosed with prostate cancer survives 5 years in UK 50% survive 5 years . Sounds like US is better but it isn't they screen for PSA as a surrogate of prostate cancer and therefore overdiagnosis. Don't forget prostate cancer is comes in two forms slow and fast. With slow you are likely to die from other causes but you still get included in the stats.

Brian