The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (133 Viewers)

[Grendel]

No, I'm not necessarily against subsidising private industry as a blanket rule - in some cases it does prevent a big shock to local or national economies that would have knock-on effects down the line. I'm more for subsidising infrastructure and services that are beneficial to society as a whole but predominantly the people though. If private businesses also benefit then that's fine but it shouldn't be the main or intended beneficiary.

My point is that if these free-market capitalist advocates truly believed in the system they wouldn't request or even accept such intervention even if offered because it skews the outcome.

America have started this trade war with China due to state subsidy creating artifically low prices, but the US subsidies it's own industry as well in certain ways. There was a documentary a few years ago where some businesses were being kept competitive because they were allowed to use prisoners as a workforce - pretty much slave labour.

The 2008 crisis was a disaster created by the financial services sector. Many individuals knew it was coming and rather than trying to prevent it positioned themselves to profit personally and then added fuel to the fire. So when it all eventually went tits up and the businesses they controlled had been put on the brink you'd imagine this epitome of capitalism would be adamant that it wouldn't want state aid as govt had no place interfering in the market. But amazingly they were immediately cap in hand asking for bailouts which were way in excess of anything other industries had required before. Then once they'd got the money all of a sudden it's back to the mantra of 'no state intervention' when the likes of regulation and bonuses are questioned.

Capitalists are far quicker and happier to accept financial help than most of those on income support. That is the irony.

So you don’t agree with BSB and Schmeee that think we should close businesses that can’t afgitd to increase wages

Ok

Was it you they made the analogy about governments subsidising machine repairs?

 

---

[skybluetony176]

Er I think it’s brighton and schmeee you need to address this to - they think any non self sufficient business needs closing? Where have I said this?

Where have you said what? I asked you a question. I haven’t accused you of anything.

 

[Grendel]

Where have you said what? I asked you a question. I haven’t accused you of anything.

Which I’ve answered to Brighton - I do not oppose state subsidy - do you?

 

[skybluetony176]

So do you agree or disagree with subsidies?

I don’t disagree with farmers or the farming business receiving subsidies if absolutely necessary in certain incidents. For example feeding the country, in some cases like milk though I’d rather they just got a reasonable profit on the pint and this is passed onto the consumer. I do disagree with the landowner getting it when they are neither the farmer or the farming business.

 

[skybluetony176]

Which I’ve answered to Brighton - I do not oppose state subsidy - do you?

If it represents value for taxpayers money then no. You have dodged my question though. There’s no commitments to keep subsiding farming post Brexit beyond the next election. That’s why the farming industry is concerned about being the next coal industry. Any comments on that given that farming subsidies were secured under the EU CAP? Which you’ve just confirmed that you’re not against.

 

[Grendel]

If it represents value for taxpayers money then no. You have dodged my question though. There’s no commitments to keep subsiding farming post Brexit beyond the next election. That’s why the farming industry is concerned about being the next coal industry. Any comments on that given that farming subsidies were secured under the EU CAP? Which you’ve just confirmed that you’re not against.

Er Brighton and Schmeee are against any form of subsidy and an Eu subsidy is ours. Take it up with them Tony

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So you don’t agree with BSB and Schmeee that think we should close businesses that can’t afgitd to increase wages

Ok

Was it you they made the analogy about governments subsidising machine repairs?

I was saying that according to capitalist dogma businesses that can't afford to pay living wages and make a profit should close because they aren't viable.

That was my point with the analogy - it was based on how a fully paid up capitalist should react, not me personally.

FYI I'm not a fan at all of the CAP or the CFP at all, and the fact that often much of that financial aid goes to the wrong people just makes it even worse.

The fact that you don't necessarily disagree with state subsidy shows that you don't truly believe in the capitalist model. You believe in redistribution from the successful to the less/non successful for the overall good, which makes you a socialist deep down.

 

[skybluetony176]

Er Brighton and Schmeee are against any form of subsidy and an Eu subsidy is ours. Take it up with them Tony

But you’ve voted to leave the subsidy. You’re the one who specifically brought up agriculture. So I’m taking it up with you.

 

[Grendel]

But you’ve voted to leave the subsidy. You’re the one who specifically brought up agriculture. So I’m taking it up with you.

Nope I’m taking up the principal of the state subsidising per se - Brighton and schmeee are against so are they stupid or really closet brexiteers - what do you reckon? This is the argument on subsidising a minimum wage

Your against it as well aren’t you?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

If that is the case why should the state subsidise housing?

You love to pick and choose the rules depending on the topic at the time.

Should we just close everywhere not making a big profit? Should we force new startups into paying higher wages than they can afford?

Yeah shut em down and throw millions onto the scrap heap. Great idea

Obviously not but businesses could be offered tax relief or some other compensation that sees the employee paid more for their work.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Brighton is advocating closing every farm in the uk

Interesting you are moving into the realm of complete bullshit rather than implicit

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Er I think it’s brighton and schmeee you need to address this to - they think any non self sufficient business needs closing? Where have I said this?

If employers can’t pay their workers enough to live there has been a systemic failure.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So you don’t agree with BSB and Schmeee that think we should close businesses that can’t afgitd to increase wages

Ok

Was it you they made the analogy about governments subsidising machine repairs?

Tell you what G let’s make the state cover all wages to take the burden off the employer...

 

[skybluetony176]

Nope I’m taking up the principal of the state subsidising per se - Brighton and schmeee are against so are they stupid or really closet brexiteers - what do you reckon? This is the argument on subsidising a minimum wage

Your against it as well aren’t you?

They’re probably no more closet brexiteers than you’re a closet Socialist. So where would you personally draw the line in subsidies.

 

[Grendel]

Interesting you are moving into the realm of complete bullshit rather than implicit

So as many farm workers are paid the minimum wage and those wages are state subsidised perhaps you can explain to us whose paying the 33% increase?

 

[Grendel]

They’re probably no more closet brexiteers than you’re a closet Socialist. So where would you personally draw the line in subsidies.

Says the Chuka Berger of the forum

 

[skybluetony176]

Says the Chuka Berger of the forum

Oh dear.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So as many farm workers are paid the minimum wage and those wages are state subsidised perhaps you can explain to us whose paying the 33% increase?

The business owner in exchange for some other form of compensation assuming that raising prices won't cover it. It's curious how you want to keep a high welfare bill when you're meant to be a rampaging free marketeer

 

[skybluetony176]

So as many farm workers are paid the minimum wage and those wages are state subsidised perhaps you can explain to us whose paying the 33% increase?

Without the supply of cheap labour from the EU do you think minimum wage will be enough to entice Brits to work the fields?

 

[Grendel]

Without the supply of cheap labour from the EU do you think minimum wage will be enough to entice Brits to work the fields?

Wow. So now we rejoice the freedom of movement which means the industry is supported by workers from other areas who at home have half the minimum wage to here so they are happy with the minimum wage (Which is already paid by the farming subsidy) and now want to pay the migrants even more through even more of a subsidy

Sounds like a plan

 

[CCFCSteve]

Why should the state subsidise low wages?

Because it’s probably better than having higher unemployment, which might be the alternative.

This is an extremely complex issue and people can argue both sides. It also leads to other questions ie should the government pay child benefit (which subsidises people who decide have kids and many rely on in addition to their working wage)

The positive news is that the NMW has been increasing and there is pressure on larger corporates to pay the NLW, which might be a better solution than forcing smaller businesses with an immediate substantial overhead increase

 

[Grendel]

The business owner in exchange for some other form of compensation assuming that raising prices won't cover it. It's curious how you want to keep a high welfare bill when you're meant to be a rampaging free marketeer

It’s curious you want to have no state intervention and operate a free market economy

 

[skybluetony176]

Wow. So now we rejoice the freedom of movement which means the industry is supported by workers from other areas who at home have half the minimum wage to here so they are happy with the minimum wage (Which is already paid by the farming subsidy) and now want to pay the migrants even more through even more of a subsidy

Sounds like a plan

You’ve managed to contrive any situation possible there other than the one I said, attributed it to what I said despite it not being what I said all to avoid what I said.

I’ll put it to you in a timeline to see if you can still avoid the point.

We leave the EU thus ending freedom of movement.

Labour win an election thus increasing minimum wage to £10 an hour.

Because freedom of movement has ended thus ending the supply of cheap labour we need British workers to fill the jobs.

Do you think that the new minimum wage will be enough to entice British workers into the fields?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It’s curious you want to have no state intervention and operate a free market economy

I don't want the state picking up the tab for low wages-why do you?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Because it’s probably better than having higher unemployment, which might be the alternative.

This is an extremely complex issue and people can argue both sides. It also leads to other questions ie should the government pay child benefit (which subsidises people who decide have kids and many rely on in addition to their working wage)

The positive news is that the NMW has been increasing and there is pressure on larger corporates to pay the NLW, which might be a better solution than forcing smaller businesses with an immediate substantial overhead increase

That is a fear borne out of theory but not out of practice. Businesses can be compensated in other ways but at the moment full time employment isn't enticing enough when one has to top it up with government support. Otherwise we continue with a system where in fact, work doesn't pay.

 

[Grendel]

I don't want the state picking up the tab for low wages-why do you?

So you want the farmer subsidy to stop

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The business owner in exchange for some other form of compensation assuming that raising prices won't cover it. It's curious how you want to keep a high welfare bill when you're meant to be a rampaging free marketeer

But this is still technically market interference from the state so a die-hard Free Marketer should be against state aid of any description to private businesses to the same extent they oppose state regulation. If the govt agreed to pay each company £x per worker in exchange for paying NLW this could still be seen as effectively a wage subsidy, just the recipient is changed from the individual to the company who become responsible for administering it via increased pay to their employees. Arguments for would be a streamlining of the 'benefits' system just like companies subtract income tax and then pay the Treasury on behalf of the individuals. Others would say "can they be trusted to actually do so?"

 

[SkyblueBazza]

No, I'm not necessarily against subsidising private industry as a blanket rule - in some cases it does prevent a big shock to local or national economies that would have knock-on effects down the line. I'm more for subsidising infrastructure and services that are beneficial to society as a whole but predominantly the people though. If private businesses also benefit then that's fine but it shouldn't be the main or intended beneficiary.

My point is that if these free-market capitalist advocates truly believed in the system they wouldn't request or even accept such intervention even if offered because it skews the outcome.

America have started this trade war with China due to state subsidy creating artifically low prices, but the US subsidies it's own industry as well in certain ways. There was a documentary a few years ago where some businesses were being kept competitive because they were allowed to use prisoners as a workforce - pretty much slave labour.

The 2008 crisis was a disaster created by the financial services sector. Many individuals knew it was coming and rather than trying to prevent it positioned themselves to profit personally and then added fuel to the fire. So when it all eventually went tits up and the businesses they controlled had been put on the brink you'd imagine this epitome of capitalism would be adamant that it wouldn't want state aid as govt had no place interfering in the market. But amazingly they were immediately cap in hand asking for bailouts which were way in excess of anything other industries had required before. Then once they'd got the money all of a sudden it's back to the mantra of 'no state intervention' when the likes of regulation and bonuses are questioned.

Capitalists are far quicker and happier to accept financial help than most of those on income support. That is the irony.

Yeah...America bad, China good

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Er Brighton and Schmeee are against any form of subsidy and an Eu subsidy is ours. Take it up with them Tony

They are against UK Govt subsidies. EU ones are absolutely a good thing.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Without the supply of cheap labour from the EU do you think minimum wage will be enough to entice Brits to work the fields?

That is the whole point isn't it?

If you cannot attract anyone to do the job other than desperate people from poorer countries with freedom of movement in the EU - you aren't offering enough!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Yeah...America bad, China good

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Where did I say that?

I'm no fan of China and the way it blatantly ignores things like IPR and copyright protections of foreign companies or the way they subsidise many of their industries and have too much interference. I think they're a nation that need to be watched very very carefully for fear of expansionism.

My point was that the US are using the fact that China blatantly subsidies Chinese companies to undercut competition to impose tariffs on Chinese goods to increase domestic consumption of US goods ahead of Chinese ones. But the US also subsidise their own industry just in different, less obvious ways (as do we and most other nations). It's the fact that the US seem to have taken some sort of moral high-horse of free-market when they do very employ very similar tactics and techniques to protect their own.

(whether tariffs are a smart strategy given they will harm exports due to the inevitable retaliatory tariffs not to mention diplomatic relations is another argument entirely).

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

They are against UK Govt subsidies. EU ones are absolutely a good thing.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

What an odd world you live in. Nothing better to do?

 

[skybluetony176]

That is the whole point isn't it?

If you cannot attract anyone to do the job other than desperate people from poorer countries with freedom of movement in the EU - you aren't offering enough!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Which actually isn’t the point.

 

[Astute]

I don’t disagree with farmers or the farming business receiving subsidies if absolutely necessary in certain incidents. For example feeding the country, in some cases like milk though I’d rather they just got a reasonable profit on the pint and this is passed onto the consumer. I do disagree with the landowner getting it when they are neither the farmer or the farming business.

If you agree with me why do you try to make out that you disagree with me?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Where did I say that?

I'm no fan of China and the way it blatantly ignores things like IPR and copyright protections of foreign companies or the way they subsidise many of their industries and have too much interference. I think they're a nation that need to be watched very very carefully for fear of expansionism.

My point was that the US are using the fact that China blatantly subsidies Chinese companies to undercut competition to impose tariffs on Chinese goods to increase domestic consumption of US goods ahead of Chinese ones. But the US also subsidise their own industry just in different, less obvious ways (as do we and most other nations). It's the fact that the US seem to have taken some sort of moral high-horse of free-market when they do very employ very similar tactics and techniques to protect their own.

(whether tariffs are a smart strategy given they will harm exports due to the inevitable retaliatory tariffs not to mention diplomatic relations is another argument entirely).

The trouble is - every country gives subsidies for one industry or another. So it is hypocritical of one to criticise another. The real issues are around the intent. One country subsidises to keep a vital industry afloat in it's local market...another does it to dominate the international market - then we get problems & all industries become embroiled in tit-for-tat shit.

Bit like leave-remain really.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk