Brexit

[HuskerShark]

2 through 5 are the same and they are hollow.

 

And "nationalism" over "globalism" is an awful idea and better characterized as "domestic manufacturism" over "free market consumers."

 

Would you support statism trade restrictions? What if California putting tariffs on Nebraska beef?

 

Finally, "securing the border" is a pipe dream and an awful waste of resources.

Free trade only works if both sides of the agreement must abide by the same sets of rules in terms of labor, products specs, etc. Which is why NAFTA is so bad for us. What's stopping a company from moving to Mexico and paying workers 20-25% (if that) of their labor costs here in the US?

 

Securing the border is a pipe dream? You realize the border control has come out in support of Trump for this exact reason, right? Or does the media not cover that either? I have friends in the national guard, and they would rather go to Iraq than the US-Mexico border because it's so extremely unsafe. I don't see anybody else proposing anything as an alternative.

 

And nationalism is a terrible idea?! That may be the dumbest thing I've heard yet. Nationalism doesn't mean you isolate yourself completely as a country. It means we put our own interests first, and if working with or protecting other countries does not benefit us or is not mutually beneficial, we need to walk.

[Moiraine]

 

JJ

 

I don't know the details of Brexit and don't pretend to. I feel much the same way you do in your post.

 

But on the surface I think a lot of the "panic" is because people (investors) don't know what will come next. The UK will play by their own rules now and not be part of an "organized" EU. I think....Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Like I said, don't know much about it.

I understand the short term market panic. That's just the normal reaction to virtually any change. But I have yet to see it explained how this changes the economic fundamentals for the UK or the EU or for anyone. Seems like much ado about nothing...but that is what current day society is good at, I guess.

 

I don't know much about it either but saw this yesterday:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html

 

I imagine that kind of thing will be happening all over the place and is going to take a long time to sort out.

[The Dude]

Wonder when the dominoes start to fall. Putting my prediction on record: France and Germany are next.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

JJ

 

I don't know the details of Brexit and don't pretend to. I feel much the same way you do in your post.

 

But on the surface I think a lot of the "panic" is because people (investors) don't know what will come next. The UK will play by their own rules now and not be part of an "organized" EU. I think....Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Like I said, don't know much about it.

I understand the short term market panic. That's just the normal reaction to virtually any change. But I have yet to see it explained how this changes the economic fundamentals for the UK or the EU or for anyone. Seems like much ado about nothing...but that is what current day society is good at, I guess.

I don't know much about it either but saw this yesterday:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html

I imagine that kind of thing will be happening all over the place and is going to take a long time to sort out.

Certainly it will take some adjusting to replace current deals with new ones. That was an interesting little article. Basically the EU was subsidizing the Cornwall region and now, even though the residents of that area voted resoundingly to leave the EU, they want those subsidies replaced. It's hard to comment on this in the the context of free or open markets. That would seem to be a similar program to how our government subsidizes farmers or other industry in our country. One hopes that people or areas are able to contribute economically or receive assistance when they are unable to participate in a completely free way. Ideally it would seem they need to support themselves and not rely on a subsidy. It will take time and effort that's for sure but I doubt that area of England has fundamentally changed. I guess I don't see a problem with any country, or area within a country, being allowed to negotiate their own trade deals. My understanding of the EU is simply that it adds another layer of beauracrasy that is even further removed from the people it supposedly represents. IMO that just adds more inefficiency that isn't required. Probably works out better for some and worse for others. Looks like it apparently wasn't working out better for most in the UK.

[cm husker]

 

2 through 5 are the same and they are hollow.

 

And "nationalism" over "globalism" is an awful idea and better characterized as "domestic manufacturism" over "free market consumers."

 

Would you support statism trade restrictions? What if California putting tariffs on Nebraska beef?

 

Finally, "securing the border" is a pipe dream and an awful waste of resources.

Free trade only works if both sides of the agreement must abide by the same sets of rules in terms of labor, products specs, etc. Which is why NAFTA is so bad for us. What's stopping a company from moving to Mexico and paying workers 20-25% (if that) of their labor costs here in the US?

 

Securing the border is a pipe dream? You realize the border control has come out in support of Trump for this exact reason, right? Or does the media not cover that either? I have friends in the national guard, and they would rather go to Iraq than the US-Mexico border because it's so extremely unsafe. I don't see anybody else proposing anything as an alternative.

 

And nationalism is a terrible idea?! That may be the dumbest thing I've heard yet. Nationalism doesn't mean you isolate yourself completely as a country. It means we put our own interests first, and if working with or protecting other countries does not benefit us or is not mutually beneficial, we need to walk.

If conditions were the same, there would be no difference in pricing and no reason to trade. Again, I go back to California. What if California made a rule that said all beef producers needed to "raise beef under the same conditions, including labor pricing" as we establish for california producers? Would you support such a measure?

 

Manufacturing and Labor protectionism is a bad thing 100% of the time in all contexts. It drives up prices and stifles innovation.

 

As to border control, I wonder why an agency would possibly come out in support of a politician who plans to drastically up their funding, even if most experts agree it would be to little avail?

 

You want to stop unsafe condition at the border, kill the drug war. Don't kill immigration.

 

Nationalism is almost always bad and you can't strike a deal to that is good for all Americans. If you tell ford you'll tax them into the ground for each car produced in Mexico and sold in the US (a trump proposal), then the increased costs of us manufacturing are either borne by consumers or ford slows down its production and or innovation. That's no different, though much less efficient, than raising taxes on Americans. And it's particularly regressive.

 

What you and trump essentially propose is that US gov should pick the winners and losers in the economy.

 

And I'd say that's quite a departure from republican ideas and the American way (at least as its been defined).

[cm husker]

Oh, and has the guard even suffered a casualty in the border security effort? I know they've spent millions. But I can't find any evidence any guardsmen have been injured, let alone killed, in fighting at the border.

 

So I find the Iraq comparison a bit misleading.

[zoogs]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/boris-johnson-michael-gove-eu-liars

 

I'm sure Britain will be OK enough in the long run. But this seems like an unforced error.

[JJ Husker]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/boris-johnson-michael-gove-eu-liarsI'm sure Britain will be OK enough in the long run. But this seems like an unforced error.

Interesting read but there was not one bit of substance in it. It was just a character assassination piece on a couple of the guys who promoted the leave movement. I still have yet to see any facts that lead me to believe this was clearly a bad move in the long run for the UK.

 

We are experiencing g a similar phenomenon in this country right now. People are fed up with the status quo and are willing to throw caution to the wind in any effort to change things up. I mean how else do you explain the 2 major candidates (or the final 4) we have as choices for our next President. When the people don't feel their voice is being heard or respected, you can expect some radical actions to be taken. And like most things, the current fear mongering about Brexit (or a potential Trump Presidency) (or the previous flailing of arms we witnessed when Obama was running) will likely contain much more bark than bite.

[cm husker]

People aren't throwing caution to the wind. They are advocating for a government to start picking winners and losers, and unsurprisingly, they want to be the winners.

 

Populists in this country are frankly too stupid to even understand what is the "status quo" and how to get rid of it. Trump supporters don't want to compete. They want things handed to them. Much like trump had his wealth handed to him.

 

It's the pure hypocrisy of the Trumpinites that is most annoying to me. They want as much government take over and control as any left wing progressive. They just want the control exercised for their benefit.

[HuskerShark]

People aren't throwing caution to the wind. They are advocating for a government to start picking winners and losers, and unsurprisingly, they want to be the winners.

 

Populists in this country are frankly too stupid to even understand what is the "status quo" and how to get rid of it. Trump supporters don't want to compete. They want things handed to them. Much like trump had his wealth handed to him.

 

It's the pure hypocrisy of the Trumpinites that is most annoying to me. They want as much government take over and control as any left wing progressive. They just want the control exercised for their benefit.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all.

[mrandyk]

I don't know enough to comment fully, but Interesting demographic split on the vote

 

One can draw a parallel to the US and how educated individuals tend to vote Democrat, perhaps especially so during this upcoming presidential election.

[huKSer]

But back to Brexit.

 

Can anybody explain what is fundementally different economically whether the UK stayed in the EU or left?

 

Seems to me nothing fundementally changes. They still consume and still produce and will find markets to sell what they produce. Why are most acting like it's the end of the world? I guess I don't get it. Seems like the typical running around with arms flailing saying the sky is falling when it hasn't moved an inch.

It seems to me that GB will not be subsidizing the economies of countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. Especially Greece.

[JJ Husker]

 

But back to Brexit.

Can anybody explain what is fundementally different economically whether the UK stayed in the EU or left?

Seems to me nothing fundementally changes. They still consume and still produce and will find markets to sell what they produce. Why are most acting like it's the end of the world? I guess I don't get it. Seems like the typical running around with arms flailing saying the sky is falling when it hasn't moved an inch.

 

It seems to me that GB will not be subsidizing the economies of countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. Especially Greece.

That is a good point. GB will no longer have to help fund those other failed economies. I guess that is a fundamental change in their favor. Hopefully the money they save there can be used to replace any help they were receiving from the EU.

[cm husker]

 

 

But back to Brexit.

 

Can anybody explain what is fundementally different economically whether the UK stayed in the EU or left?

 

Seems to me nothing fundementally changes. They still consume and still produce and will find markets to sell what they produce. Why are most acting like it's the end of the world? I guess I don't get it. Seems like the typical running around with arms flailing saying the sky is falling when it hasn't moved an inch.

It seems to me that GB will not be subsidizing the economies of countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. Especially Greece.

Considering they funded the borrowing for those countries, they were helping themselves as the creditors.

[huKSer]

 

 

But back to Brexit.

 

Can anybody explain what is fundementally different economically whether the UK stayed in the EU or left?

 

Seems to me nothing fundementally changes. They still consume and still produce and will find markets to sell what they produce. Why are most acting like it's the end of the world? I guess I don't get it. Seems like the typical running around with arms flailing saying the sky is falling when it hasn't moved an inch.

It seems to me that GB will not be subsidizing the economies of countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. Especially Greece.

Considering they funded the borrowing for those countries, they were helping themselves as the creditors.

 

Until they default.

 

Also I said GB and not UK because Scotland looks like they might quit the UK, Northern Ireland is a remote possiblity