Mortgage rates / interest etc

[deema]

India 7.8% and desperately poor https://www.brookings.edu/blog/futu...dard-time-for-a-higher-poverty-line-in-india/Free market theorists would say that the Indian peasants should pull their fingers out and work a lot harder. Then they can buy their own clean drinking water and lavatories when they've earned enough.

India employment salaries are very similar to the UK for technical jobs such as engineers. Five years ago, when looking at restructuring a USA listed company, it came as a shock to the Americans that employing Engineers in the UK were a lower cost option than India!
The number of millionaire in India is due to at least double by 2026, a faster rate than the UK.
There is huge disparity in the distribution of wealth in India and opportunity, but this is probably more to do with the class system than anything else. Let’s not forget India is a nuclear state with a space program, not the obvious signs of a poor country.

 

[deema]

I think there are two things get conflicted, a view that support of low taxes somehow means that a corresponding view that care should not be provided to the needy. I actually think it’s completely different, what is being highlighted is that, as unbelievable as it seems, lowering taxes actually increases a coubtrues revenue enabling more money to be available for what ever the population decide to spend it on. In other words, the overall standard of living improves compared to an environment of high taxation.
Nobody in any response has suggested that support for the needy should be reduced, the only suggestion was that corruption should be tackled. The debate is about how to find the government, lie or high taxation and it’s effects on mobile capital.

 

[Blackswanwood]

@baldkev - is this question an annual event?

Interest rates and mortgages.....

 

[johna.clements]

Free market economies are not completely free. The UK rightly imposes rules to avoid the exploitation of labour (minimum wage, child labour, paid holidays etc), standards governing quality safety and performance, consumer law (cooling off periods etc).

There is a debate to be had about whether these constraints are too onerous, or still leave the public and workers exposed to unreasonable or unfair outcomes.

Regulation adds cost to products and services. It makes it more difficult to compete internationally where overseas companies may be less regulated.

Simplistically, "capitalism" seems to favour low regulation to promote innovation and efficiency, "Socialism" tends to favour regulation to minimise inequity.

Companies are free to choose where to locate operations based on logistics, labour market, stability, regulation, tax etc. This will not change in the foreseeable future. The UK government has no jurisdiction in other countries.

Options:

• compete through providing better goods and services onshore - generates jobs, some tax, investment, wealth
• stifle innovation and change by creating barriers to trade (import duties, tax etc). ultimately leads to the loss of jobs and associated taxation that regulation was intended to protect.

There is a bill currently in Parliament to abolish the requirement for minimum wages and paid holidays. They will cease to exist at the end of next year if the bill is passed. Don't know if the restrictions on child labour will also be removed. Government ministers may after the bill is passed decide to keep the minimum wages and paid holidays but there will be no vote on the matter.

Lower regulation makes it harder to compete internationally where overseas companies may be more regulated. When you are selling into a market you have to demonstrate that you meet their standards. If domestically you have to meet the same standards it is relatively easy to demonstrate that you meet the other markets standards. If you do not have to meet the standards domestically you will have to pay more to get your products tested and for your business to be audited to ensure that you meet the higher standards. Because your products now require more checks that cost you money you have to increase the cost of your goods and become less competitive or take less profit.

The UK and other countries have decided to have jurisdiction in other countries.

 

[Jacob]

.... Let’s not forget India is a nuclear state with a space program, not the obvious signs of a poor country.

exactly. It's the number of poor people which indicate that it's a poor country. These things are simpler than you think.

 

[sploo]

10 pages so far, my most popular thread yet..... if i start a thread on towbars we can run through everyones thoughts on religion

If I weren't so lazy I'd use Photoshop to knock up an image of a car with a towbar in the shape of a menorah

 

[Spectric]

India employment salaries are very similar to the UK for technical jobs such as engineers. Five years ago, when looking at restructuring a USA listed company, it came as a shock to the Americans that employing Engineers in the UK were a lower cost option than India!
The number of millionaire in India is due to at least double by 2026, a faster rate than the UK.

All part of the re-alignment where countries like India and China are growing and becoming more influencial as the Uk slides down to it's new position on the world stage and our employment will grow but wages will fall in comparison. Having a large population of poor people is just a large pool of future workers, in the Uk we once had a very large number of poor rural workers until they moved from the country into towns to work in industry during the industrial revolution but the big difference is we were starting from scratch and they have been given a head start.

 

[sploo]

the Tufton Street Taliban.

I'd seen the existence of that video but hadn't previously watched it because I thought it was just a silly stunt of them putting the blue plaque on the building - how wrong I was. Nothing "new" (in the sense that it's well known what comes out of Tufton Street), but it's a great explanation for those who aren't aware.

Whilst it was pleasing to see such a sudden and public failure of their immediate policies (in Truss and Kwarteng damaging the economy, and of course, Truss unsurprisingly being a total failure), I rather doubt they'll stop in their activities.

What amazes me is that their representatives are invited to give opinion on widely publicly available media when their donors are very deliberately kept private. Seems to me that there should be a rule that any group or think tank that wants airtime must have transparency as to who provides the funds for their activities.

 

[Jacob]

I'd seen the existence of that video but hadn't previously watched it because I thought it was just a silly stunt of them putting the blue plaque on the building - how wrong I was. Nothing "new" (in the sense that it's well known what comes out of Tufton Street), but it's a great explanation for those who aren't aware.

Whilst it was pleasing to see such a sudden and public failure of their immediate policies (in Truss and Kwarteng damaging the economy, and of course, Truss unsurprisingly being a total failure), I rather doubt they'll stop in their activities.

What amazes me is that their representatives are invited to give opinion on widely publicly available media when their donors are very deliberately kept private. Seems to me that there should be a rule that any group or think tank that wants airtime must have transparency as to who provides the funds for their activities.

Yes it's very interesting! They should have started the commentary a bit earlier as many might miss it and switch off too soon
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/p...ton-street-with-oversized-blue-plaque-337101/

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Lower regulation makes it harder to compete internationally where overseas companies may be more regulated. When you are selling into a market you have to demonstrate that you meet their standards

This was partially true when the UK was in the EU - the fundamental principles of free movement of goods, people, money etc meant that a common core set of rules applied to all members.

It is also true that for some imported goods compliance with some local requirements is mandatory - eg: safety of electrical goods, permitted food additives etc.

But as far as I know there is no regulation imposed upon manufacturers overseas about how the goods are manufactured.

China, India, Bangladesh etc may pay workers well below UK minimum wage, in conditions that in this country we would regard as abhorrent, with little regard for environmental impacts, etc. This is the main reason for the lower prices most in this country are happy to enjoy.

The UK and other countries have decided to have jurisdiction in other countries.

Can you give an example. As far as I know the UK can only enact laws in the UK (possibly + Falklands, Gibraltar etc).

UK government can bring action in courts around the world. The laws under which the courts operate are set by its own government (not the UK) - be it democracy or dictatorship.

If action is taken against a foreign company or individual in the UK under UK law, the problem then becomes one of enforcing judgement. With the exception of some criminal acts for which there are extradition treaties etc, judgement cannot be enforced, only requested.

An example - the UK government wins a case for which a punitive fine is the outcome. If the guilty has assets in the UK, bailiffs can be appointed to seize said assets. If the assets are overseas, bailiffs may even be guilty of breaking local laws if they tried to recover assets in this way.

 

[Jacob]

....

Lower regulation makes it harder to compete internationally where overseas companies may be more regulated. When you are selling into a market you have to demonstrate that you meet their standards.......

A good part of why joining the EU was such a good idea. and the reason why trading with the EU is now problematic, particularly with the island of Ireland, on which Johnson lied his teeth off and took a big gamble - knowing that he himself wouldn't be in place to deal with the damage

 

[Spectric]

Boris gambled everything on delivering brexit, it was a promise he made and therefore had to deliver it. People must have known that there was no solution that would solve the Irish border issues and keep everyone happy so why did no one raise any doubts and allow the government to sign an agreement knowing it had a big glowing hole that was thinly hidden. Maybe it is time to have a referendom and ask if the people in Northern ireland want to remain British or become Irish and you have a potential solution if they want to be Irish as then it is all within the EU.

 

[johna.clements]

This was partially true when the UK was in the EU - the fundamental principles of free movement of goods, people, money etc meant that a common core set of rules applied to all members.

It is also true that for some imported goods compliance with some local requirements is mandatory - eg: safety of electrical goods, permitted food additives etc.

But as far as I know there is no regulation imposed upon manufacturers overseas about how the goods are manufactured.

China, India, Bangladesh etc may pay workers well below UK minimum wage, in conditions that in this country we would regard as abhorrent, with little regard for environmental impacts, etc. This is the main reason for the lower prices most in this country are happy to enjoy.



Can you give an example. As far as I know the UK can only enact laws in the UK (possibly + Falklands, Gibraltar etc).

UK government can bring action in courts around the world. The laws under which the courts operate are set by its own government (not the UK) - be it democracy or dictatorship.

If action is taken against a foreign company or individual in the UK under UK law, the problem then becomes one of enforcing judgement. With the exception of some criminal acts for which there are extradition treaties etc, judgement cannot be enforced, only requested.

An example - the UK government wins a case for which a punitive fine is the outcome. If the guilty has assets in the UK, bailiffs can be appointed to seize said assets. If the assets are overseas, bailiffs may even be guilty of breaking local laws if they tried to recover assets in this way.

Yes when we were in the EU and automatically applied EU rules, (if we did not veto them or get an opt out) we did not have to demonstrate that we complied with EU rules. Exporters to the EU already had demonstrated compliance to the UK government. When we diverge our rules from the EU our exporters will then have to demonstrate compliance with EU rules.

If the UK does not keep paid holidays (the government has not yet decided to keep them) and the EU requires importers to pay for holidays or pay a tariff then UK companies will have an additional expense. The UK exporter will have to bring in an auditor to prove that it provides paid holidays or pay a tariff. The exporter may be more competative when exporting out side the EU but it is harder to grow market share than loose.

There are numerous British standards (most of which were adopted by the EU) etc about how goods are manufactured overseas.


I am surprised you are not aware of the UK imposing laws overseas when it chooses to do so. It has a long history, I would be surprised if it started at Nuremberg. The US taxes people overseas, Boris had to pay the US to give up his US citizenship to stop getting tax demands (he spent the first three months of his life in New York). Boris could have ignored the US tax demands but then he would have problems visiting the US or doing business.

 

[johna.clements]

Boris gambled everything on delivering brexit, it was a promise he made and therefore had to deliver it. People must have known that there was no solution that would solve the Irish border issues and keep everyone happy so why did no one raise any doubts and allow the government to sign an agreement knowing it had a big glowing hole that was thinly hidden. Maybe it is time to have a referendom and ask if the people in Northern ireland want to remain British or become Irish and you have a potential solution if they want to be Irish as then it is all within the EU.

People did point out there would be problems with Northern Ireland, it was called project fear.

Mogg and others said there would be a technological solution, he has not produced it. May had the backstop which would be inplace until the Mogg solution arrived or something else appeared. May said the only other solution was a border in the Irish Sea. Boris took over and negotied a border in the Irish Sea then claimed he did not know what a border in the Irish sea was.

It was just ignored because it was a difficult problem.

 

[Spectric]

Mogg and others said there would be a technological solution, he has not produced it.

Just like keeping water and electricity apart you have to keep politicians and technology apart, look at the fiasco with our track and trace and how much money went down that sink hole.

 

[johna.clements]

10 pages so far, my most popular thread yet..... if i start a thread on towbars we can run through everyones thoughts on religion

The EU have just put interest rates up 3/4%.

I hope this is not too on topic

 

[Jacob]

"During Liz Truss’s short premiership, there was much talk about the power and influence of the Tufton Street network of opaque rightwing thinktanks. But actually, the longer-term driving force of UK economic policy, there in front of us all this time, has been the City of London. It’s time to open our eyes and look more closely."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ish-politics-investment-banker-prime-minister
They were also main drivers in the hysterical and extreme reaction to poor old Corbyn's brief ascendancy. He was a real threat to what they hold most dear i.e. loadsa money in their hands.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

f the UK does not keep paid holidays (the government has not yet decided to keep them) and the EU requires importers to pay for holidays or pay a tariff then UK companies will have an additional expense.

In 2021 EU imported US$557bn from China and US$54bn from India. It is an absolute certainty that employment, environmental, safety standards etc would not have met the minimum required by the EU for production inside the EU.

Mostly (but not entirely) wealthy western economies are happy to ignore the conditions under which goods are produced overseas to benefit from lower prices. Their principal concern is only that the goods are fit for purpose, and little concerned about how or where they are made.

I would be surprised if it started at Nuremberg. The US taxes people overseas, Boris had to pay the US to give up his US citizenship to stop getting tax demands (he spent the first three months of his life in New York).

The Nuremburg trials were held following a London Conference between the allies. It was not based on one country imposing their laws on another. The pursuit of war criminals may have little common with commercial trade anyway.

Boris having been born in the US was evidently subject to US law. He had a choice - continue to respond to US tax demands or give up citizenship. Given his very public profile this was something he needed to resolve. This is nothing to do with the US imposing its laws on the UK - they were imposing US laws on Boris as a US citizen.

 

[johna.clements]

In 2021 EU imported US$557bn from China and US$54bn from India. It is an absolute certainty that employment, environmental, safety standards etc would not have met the minimum required by the EU for production inside the EU.

Mostly (but not entirely) wealthy western economies are happy to ignore the conditions under which goods are produced overseas to benefit from lower prices. Their principal concern is only that the goods are fit for purpose, and little concerned about how or where they are made.



The Nuremburg trials were held following a London Conference between the allies. It was not based on one country imposing their laws on another. The pursuit of war criminals may have little common with commercial trade anyway.

Boris having been born in the US was evidently subject to US law. He had a choice - continue to respond to US tax demands or give up citizenship. Given his very public profile this was something he needed to resolve. This is nothing to do with the US imposing its laws on the UK - they were imposing US laws on Boris as a US citizen.

The EU imposes tariffs on the USA and India. If we adopt US or Indian regulations we will have to pay tariffs.

Thank you for agreeing that the US imposes citizenship on people, against their will, so that it can tax them.

 

[akirk]

Thank you for agreeing that the US imposes citizenship on people, against their will, so that it can tax them.

Sorry - this is now getting a little ridiculous!

Boris Johnson was born in the USA - and therefore had USA citizenship
No country imposes citizenship to then tax people...