The result of the EU referendum:

[jakswan]

It's in the interests of everybody to spread the wealth. Economics is not a zero sum game.

Well the alternative is for all British people to subsidise the steel workers to make steel that nobody wants. Wouldn't it be better for those workers to produce things that people do want without needing a subsidy?

Why should British workers have to give up their jobs, if there is too much steel then they Chinese should cut back on production.

Outbid the NHS on what?

Anything, x-rays, operations, etc.

[jakswan]

If it turned out that US companies could provide health services at a lower cost than the NHS - why would this be a bad thing?

The important thing is that services are free at the point of delivery.

I see so a total disregard for British jobs?

[jakswan]

Why is it that the Brexiters keep banging on about TTIP? I just went to the official EU web site where it tells me that TTIP is still in negotiation with the USA.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1488

So they are fear mongering about a trade agreement that has not been finalised.

So we shouldn't highlight any concerns about it?

They are selectively forgetting that the TTIP will have to be ratified by all the member states, including the UK, if we are still a member. They are selectively forgetting that, if we are not in the EU, we will need our own version of TTIP and it's unlikely to be substantially different.

I'm not selectively forgetting anything, its yet another fantasy you have.

[jakswan]

And which the President pointed out, would not be very high on the agenda of a future US administration.

Yes back of the queue, guess how many are currently in this queue?

One, lol.

[Jack Knave]

Why is it that the Brexiters keep banging on about TTIP? I just went to the official EU web site where it tells me that TTIP is still in negotiation with the USA.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1488

So they are fear mongering about a trade agreement that has not been finalised. They are selectively forgetting that the TTIP will have to be ratified by all the member states, including the UK, if we are still a member. They are selectively forgetting that, if we are not in the EU, we will need our own version of TTIP and it's unlikely to be substantially different.

So you only want to deal with a very bad contract, which will trash all our lives, after it has been ratified.......oh very clever Brains. You need more fish, brain food, for your small blob of jelly in your head!!!

[L.A.]

I see so a total disregard for British jobs?

So who do you imagine that these US companies would employ to perform the work?  (Though possibly they might have difficulty finding UK citizens qualified, willing and able to do the work)

But of course, if British companies or NHS in-house units could do the work more cost effectively - no problem!

NHS escalating costs are a threat to us all.  We can't afford to ignore outsourcing options just because the unions (or UKIP) don't like them.

[L.A.]

Yes back of the queue, guess how many are currently in this queue?

One, lol.

For America, trade with the EU is quite a big deal.  If I might quote:

The U.S. economic relationship with the EU is the largest and most complex in the world, generating goods and services trade flows of about $2.7 billion a day [2012 estimate] and transatlantic investment is directly responsible for roughly 6.8 million jobs [2010 estimate].  This enormous volume of transatlantic trade and investment promotes economic prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic and in the dozens of other countries that trade with the transatlantic partners.  The United States and the EU continue to pursue initiatives to create new opportunities for transatlantic commerce.

(source https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/european-union)

$2.7 billion a day is very close to 1 Trillion a year. In contrast last Year, the UK exports to America were  about 56 billion dollars, imports about 57 billion.
(source https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4120.html)

So, for the worlds No 1 superpower - just how high-up the agenda for an incoming administration would you imagine that rescuing a Little England (that had just shot itself in the foot) would be?

I'd say slightly lower than arranging President Clinton's hair appointments

P.S.

Or (perish the thought) in the case of President Trump 

We could forget about the deal altogether because 'that goddarn Brit Salmond' actually tried to have him banned. (so that's you buggered too Scotland)

[Jack Knave]

So who do you imagine that these US companies would employ to perform the work?  (Though possibly they might have difficulty finding UK citizens qualified, willing and able to do the work)

But of course, if British companies or NHS in-house units could do the work more cost effectively - no problem!

NHS escalating costs are a threat to us all.  We can't afford to ignore outsourcing options just because the unions (or UKIP) don't like them.

Such misguided twaddle!!!

[L.A.]

Such misguided twaddle!!!

I find your position incomprehensible Jack. What are you saying? You would exclude private companies from doing NHS work because they might be . . . foreign owned . . . employ foreigners . . . be dominated by unions . . . what ?

[jeremyp]

Why should British workers have to give up their jobs, if there is too much steel then they Chinese should cut back on production.

But they aren't cutting back on production, so I ask again: why should the British taxpayer subsidise people to make steel that nobody wants to buy?

Anything, x-rays, operations, etc.

Why should the British taxpayer subsidise expensive in house NHS services if somebody else can do it cheaper with the same quality?

[jeremyp]

I see so a total disregard for British jobs?

Completely the opposite actually. Economics is not a zero sum game.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But they aren't cutting back on production, so I ask again: why should the British taxpayer subsidise people to make steel that nobody wants to buy?
Why should the British taxpayer subsidise expensive in house NHS services if somebody else can do it cheaper with the same quality?

I have some experience of a unit of a public service being liberated to outsource.
The in house service which had also been turned over to the private sector would not pass on critical information to the new choice of provider.
The unit had to return to the original provider and the contract with the new provider had to be bought out. Overall in house cuts out multiplication and expenditure.

[jakswan]

But they aren't cutting back on production, so I ask again: why should the British taxpayer subsidise people to make steel that nobody wants to buy?

For two reasons the industry is cyclical and a loss of British jobs costs the taxpayer a lot more.

Why should the British taxpayer subsidise expensive in house NHS services if somebody else can do it cheaper with the same quality?

If you follow that logic we should relocate all NHS services to Eastern Europe where operations can be carried out for much less cash. Eventually the economies of Eastern Europe will rise whilst those in Western Europe will fall until we reach some sort of equilibrium.

[jakswan]

Completely the opposite actually. Economics is not a zero sum game.

Please explain?

[jeremyp]

For two reasons the industry is cyclical and a loss of British jobs costs the taxpayer a lot more.

The majority of the steel workers who have lost their jobs will go on to find productive jobs elsewhere.

Even if the steel market were buoyant, it would still be expensive to produce steel here which means that other people's steel will be cheaper. Why not leave steel production to the people who do it best?

If you follow that logic we should relocate all NHS services to Eastern Europe where operations can be carried out for much less cash.

I would have thought it should be obvious to you that NHS services need to be delivered at a place convenient for the patients.

Eventually the economies of Eastern Europe will rise whilst those in Western Europe will fall until we reach some sort of equilibrium.

Because economics is not a zero sum game, the Western Europe economies will not fall. In fact, they will benefit from the the East European economies that are doing better.

[jeremyp]

Please explain?

A zero sum game is a game in which one player's gains have to be balanced by other players' losses.

As an example, think of the Six Nations Championship. There is a total of 30 points available which means an average of five points per team. However, England ended up with 10 points this year, which means that the average of the other teams points was reduced to four.

Global economics is not like that. If Romania's GDP goes up, it doesn't mean some other country's GDP has to go down. In fact, when a country gets richer, it generates demand for imports of foreign goods which means that other countries also benefit.

So, if a company making widgets moves production from Britain to (say) Spain transferring 10,000 jobs to Spain, initially, there are 10,000 more unemployed people in Britain and 10,000 more employed people in Spain.

In Britain, the extra unemployed puts downward pressure on wages and the exchange rate making British companies more competitive abroad, improving our economy. Furthermore, some of those 10,000 unemployed people will set up new and perhaps innovative businesses and many of the rest will find jobs elsewhere. Perhaps some of them even move to the Spanish operation.

In Spain, where unemployment is still at around 21%, 10,000 people who were living off the state are now in gainful employment with disposable incomes. This provides a boost to the Spanish economy and people start buying more stuff, including from Britain. Furthermore, widgets are now being made more cheaply, so that anybody who uses them gets a benefit.

If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.

[ProfessorDavey]

A zero sum game is a game in which one player's gains have to be balanced by other players' losses.

As an example, think of the Six Nations Championship. There is a total of 30 points available which means an average of five points per team. However, England ended up with 10 points this year, which means that the average of the other teams points was reduced to four.

Global economics is not like that. If Romania's GDP goes up, it doesn't mean some other country's GDP has to go down. In fact, when a country gets richer, it generates demand for imports of foreign goods which means that other countries also benefit.

So, if a company making widgets moves production from Britain to (say) Spain transferring 10,000 jobs to Spain, initially, there are 10,000 more unemployed people in Britain and 10,000 more employed people in Spain.

In Britain, the extra unemployed puts downward pressure on wages and the exchange rate making British companies more competitive abroad, improving our economy. Furthermore, some of those 10,000 unemployed people will set up new and perhaps innovative businesses and many of the rest will find jobs elsewhere. Perhaps some of them even move to the Spanish operation.

In Spain, where unemployment is still at around 21%, 10,000 people who were living off the state are now in gainful employment with disposable incomes. This provides a boost to the Spanish economy and people start buying more stuff, including from Britain. Furthermore, widgets are now being made more cheaply, so that anybody who uses them gets a benefit.

If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.

It is quite scary that Jakswan doesn't seem to understand this. Particularly as this has been the underpinning principle which has been one of the greatest successes of the EU. Effectively that the EU supported less developed countries to grow and develop, which not only improves their position, but also in time knocks on to overall greater trade, economic growth etc for all. Decades ago the EU did this for countries that at the time were considered almost 3rd world, notable Spain and Portugal which were really very poor. That seems inconceivable now that they were considered kind of like we consider Albania now - economically backward, poor and with no longstanding tradition of democracy.

And of course this is what is happening again for the eastern european countries, again very effectively, improving their economic position, which ultimately improves ours too, while supporting and cementing democracy in countries without a tradition of democratic government.

[L.A.]

If you follow that logic we should relocate all NHS services to Eastern Europe where operations can be carried out for much less cash. Eventually the economies of Eastern Europe will rise whilst those in Western Europe will fall until we reach some sort of equilibrium.

If the sums added-up that might be a brilliant idea jakswan.

[jakswan]

The majority of the steel workers who have lost their jobs will go on to find productive jobs elsewhere.

The hit to the area would still be massive.

Even if the steel market were buoyant, it would still be expensive to produce steel here which means that other people's steel will be cheaper. Why not leave steel production to the people who do it best?

Actually i think the steel produced by the UK is the best in terms of quality.

I would have thought it should be obvious to you that NHS services need to be delivered at a place convenient for the patients.

Some not all, planned operations could be done abroad.

Because economics is not a zero sum game, the Western Europe economies will not fall. In fact, they will benefit from the the East European economies that are doing better.

Eventually they might, bit of a gamble though.

[jakswan]

If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.

There you are, the EU ideology in a nutshell.

[jakswan]

If the sums added-up that might be a brilliant idea jakswan.

So you are prepared to see the UK economy suffer in the hope the rest of the EU does better.

[jeremyp]

There you are, the EU ideology in a nutshell.

Yes, so why are you against it?

[L.A.]

So you are prepared to see the UK economy suffer in the hope the rest of the EU does better.

I'm on waiting for an operation right now - if I could just hop-on an Easyjet to Bulgaria and get it done, I would be considerably happier AND the UK economy would be better off.

[jakswan]

I'm on waiting for an operation right now - if I could just hop-on an Easyjet to Bulgaria and get it done, I would be considerably happier

Nothing stopping you is there?

AND the UK economy would be better off.

Oh dear, lets say your op costs £10,000, that money is lost from the UK economy. So for example the cleaners get some of that money, if its done abroad they won't get that money, so maybe they can't afford to buy a child trainers, which means the staff at the shoe store don't make as much who in turn don't buy a bag of chips on the way home, so the chippie is worse off and so on.

Bulgaria meanwhile is much better off clearly the agenda of the Bremainers is to look out for the welfare of Bulgarians not the British, vote leave.

[jeremyp]

Nothing stopping you is there?

Oh dear, lets say your op costs £10,000, that money is lost from the UK economy.

If he goes to Bulgaria and the op costs £5,000, our country has £5,000 to spend on something else and our overworked doctors and nurses can concentrate on services that can't be outsourced elsewhere. Plus, people in Bulgaria are richer as a result which means they'll buy more stuff off us and others. Also, LA's health problem has been corrected which makes him a more productive member of society.

Everyone's a winner.

Bulgaria meanwhile is much better off clearly the agenda of the Bremainers is to look out for the welfare of Bulgarians not the British, vote leave.

I already explained upthread why this is an incorrect characterisation of our position.