Currency vs Brexit: GBP Losses

[kuuderes_shadow]

in response to Ayase:
- The banking sector contributes 1 in every 9 pounds in UK government income*. The loss of this would be single-handedly substantially greater than all the government spending cuts that have taken place since 2010. Obviously not all of the banking operations, and thus not all the tax take from the banks, would be lost, but the reduction of the banking sector would inevitably lead to further and greater cuts to public expenditure, or large tax hikes elsewhere (or a huge and unsustainable increase in borrowing). It also employs around 2% of the entire UK labour market - increasing to 7% if you include related industries, some of which may also be lost as a side effect. While there is definitely a strong case to be made that the banking sector has at times received preferential treatments from various governments that in hindsight it should not have done, it is certainly not "good riddance" if the UK banking industry fades to insignificance, any more than it would be were any other industry - particularly one in which we are a world leader as we are in banking and finance - were to disappear.
- Anyone who ever claimed that the EU were "benevolent utopian socialists" probably doesn't know what they're talking about. The four fundamental freedoms that is arguably the most important part of the European project are based on liberal principles, not socialist ones. And free trade is also a liberal principle (that has been built into the whole project since the start), and not a sign of favouring corporate capitalism (although individual trade deals can be). And the trade deal in question (CETA) has been in negotiations for years specifically removing potential problems with it. What is there now is more or less as good as you will see anywhere when it comes to comprehensive trade deals between countries with legislation that has not been deliberately aligned to enable more trade. We would be doing damn well if the UK got anything near that good on the table not just with the EU but with anyone.
HOWEVER, the EU has various provisions and structures that are beneficial from a socialist perspective, and has historically been significantly more inclined towards socialist ideology than the government of the UK has been. I do not see this changing, even with the drift to the right (and in a few cases the far right) in a number of European countries.

in response to Just Passing Through:
- EU legislation is more controlled by elected officials than UK legislation is. Britain's waning influence in recent years is down to the UK's election of increasing number of politicians from a party which sees uselessness and low attendance as a positive in its representatives (for want of a better word) in Europe, and the second most elected party having pulled out of its group in the EU and thus greatly reducing its own ability to influence decision making.
- The Tory party is elected, and there is noone in the Tory party in the House of Commons who is not elected. The current Tory government, on the other hand, is of course a different matter.

As for the last point, I really hope that the EU doesn't fall apart. I would say that it is still unlikely, although it certainly far more likely now than it was, say, a decade ago.

*This doesn't take account of taxes on employees including national insurance and income taxes.

 

[ayase]

Slight digression on my part now, but I really couldn't care less about how much the financial sector "contributes" to society it terms of money, especially when the private banks essentially control central banks and have them print money on demand, backed by nothing, so they can then make money off that money. It would be better if the BoE just printed money and the government gave it directly to people who actually do useful work that genuinely enriches society - But of course there's no public sector workers to pay to stimulate the economy any more, because the public sector doesn't make a profit for shareholders.

The more I look at society the more I am convinced that both usury and the very idea of shareholding (at its simplest both are money invested on the promise of returning more money, with zero regard for how that money is made) are the single largest causes of human misery in the world today. It would absolutely be good riddance - This system has not always been in place, it was built and it can be destroyed and replaced with something else. Anything else would do as an interim, imho.

 

[kuuderes_shadow]

Also digressing (completely), how would you provide funds for firms looking to make substantial investments, or for entrepreneurs who need money in order to start up a promising venture? This, after all, is the main role of banks and the stock exchange - the money earned by investors is mostly a means of keeping the system functional. And it is a role that must be fulfilled if you are to have an economy that functions at all. There are few things that genuinely enrich society by more.

At present there are four systems that make up the overwhelming majority of this:
1. Banks. Which you say you want to get rid of.
2. Sale of shares. Which you also say you want to get rid of.
3. Sale of the company to an entity that can afford to make the investment. Which is also a kind of sale of shares.
4. Personal investment by the existing owner of the business.

Unlike (1) and (2), which can literally be done by anyone with a few pounds floating around, (3) and (4) are the preserve of the super-rich (if losing several hundred thousand pounds in the eventuality of a bad decision or unfortunate circumstance isn't something you can just shrug off then you should forget about the idea) and would become even more so if the ability to borrow privately was taken away as well (another role carried out mostly by the banks, and upon which many people depend to enable them to do things like buying a house).

Also, presumably if you oppose these things then you would also oppose the idea of gilts and bonds, which are also ways of people making money from literally doing nothing (investing in these requires tens of thousands more than investing in a bank account or the stockmarket, incidentally). This is what governments use to cover everything from short term shortfalls in tax intake to a significant proportion of their medium-term borrowing. Without this mechanism then governments would have to go to institutions like the IMF far more often (although this is usury as well so perhaps you want to get rid of that as well), or have tax intakes far above spending in order to cover all eventualities. Oh, and it's also the mechanism (although in this case sold to the central bank rather than individuals) that is used for quantitive easing - the very money printing that you advocate - and it is these that are backing the money that is printed under the schemes, not quite the "nothing" that you claim.

It's also worth pointing out that shareholders do have a strong interest in how a company is run - if a company is exposed as carrying out some unethical practice, then the value of their shares will take a hit, and if there are court cases involved or knock-on impacts on the firm's profits (which there usually are in such situations) then their dividends will be hit hard as well. The firm could even go under. This is obviously very bad news for the investor, and the share of the company exists in order to give them the ability to avert it. Many shareholders and tracking organisations like pension funds will also steer clear of investing in companies they see as behaving unethically. That's before you get into activist investors who buy shares specifically in order to improve a firm's performance (which can be ethical practice just as much as it can be making the firm more financially efficient - both of these things will raise the investor's share value)

You say that the system has not always been in place. This is true, but the stock exchange does date back to the 16th century - although the current system dates back only as far as the early 17th century. Before this time there was extremely little of the sort of entrepreneurship that requires large scale investment - and it was the creation of this system that enabled the foundation of the sorts of companies that make up the overwhelming majority of the economy today, from small family-run businesses to international corporate conglomerates. The banking system came about a hundred years later.

Of course, government investment in private organisations (which you allude to) also exists, though it's very much out of fashion and thus extremely rare. This is because history shows time and time again that governments are extremely ineffective at picking winners in this way. Nowadays this sort of funding only really happens at a significant level (excluding in a few, generally less developed countries, every single one of which has a significant corruption problem and/or a failing economy) with funding for charitable organisations*.

Basically, you need a system to provide funds to organisations (and preferably to people as well). In order to do this you need a form of usury - which can indeed create misery if things go badly wrong. But it's impossible to prevent things from ever going wrong. You can get rid of banks and the stock exchange and public shareholdings (private shareholdings cannot be gotten rid of, particularly when it comes to things like partnerships) but you need something to replace them, and anything you come up with that works will still have that chance of ending in misery for the investor and/or the investee. And most replacements (I would say "any" but acknowledge that there may be a system that I have neither heard nor thought of) will benefit the super-rich at the expense of those on middling incomes, and/or be a far less effective system at getting the cash to where it deserves to go.

*and public sector operations but they're different. Government run organisations don't work very well in general - and thus it become worth it for the government to step in and take over only when the market fails by an even bigger margin than the government does (how often this happens is, of course, impossible to calculate and thus open for debate). There is a strong overlap between the flaws in the operation of government run industries and government run financing. Thus public sector organisations are generally the ones where the market is deemed to fail and thus the market-based financing of them is considered likely to fail as well.

 

[HellCat]

As someone who has been very politically active since June, few believe the EU is flawless. Many Remain advocates champion parts of the EU but a large concern is that we joined it for a reason and the hollow promises of the Tories won't replace what already works. The chap who will be leading negotiations on the EU side has said more than once they must do right by those who voted to Remain as well. Meanwhile our own government instead paints any with such sentiment as traitors.

Meanwhile the Leave vote tends to boil down to racists, insane nationalists and chumps who think the 350 million is coming any day now.

 

[ayase]

tends to

We're going to persist with this simplistic tarring with the same brush despite the multiple rational reasons already presented for many people voting leave earlier in this thread and continue to paint half of the country as stupid racists are we? Awesome. There are many people on the left (and certainly the far left) who are about as far from racists and nationalists as you can get who supported leave.

And I understand how our corrupt global economic system works and how it's essentially intertwined itself with not only government but all of society to the point that ripping it out would be like removing a tumour that may kill the patient, but personally I'm willing to take that risk. What's the IMF going to do, shoot us? I'm not particularly interested in stability, and I can think of a few ways to transition that wouldn't be so great for the super rich.

 

[Otaku-san]

Regarding that petition (which is really just yet another case of that site showing how it is open to anyone prepared to put their name to something stupid), an unnamed Guildford councillor has been suspended from the local Conservative group. This petition was created by a Guildford Conservative councillor. Hmm..,

The Advertiser wrote a front page article that Mr Holliday has since been suspended and has a petition that's asked for his resignation.

mighty keks where had that day

tends to

We're going to persist with this simplistic tarring with the same brush despite the multiple rational reasons already presented for many people voting leave earlier in this thread and continue to paint half of the country as stupid racists are we? Awesome.

I feel less and less this thread is about the fluctuating Sterling to other currencies, and what we might do.
Though its still TopBalls reading what is said here

 

[HellCat]

In fairness it hasn't been about the exchange rate for a while and I hold my hand up and admit that's down to me.

I'm not looking to tar anyone. But since June I've yet to really meet anyone who voted Leave and has shown decency. I've met people who say they're not racist then loudly damn the global community when it reacts to this. I've met nationalists who cry joy and will accept the damage because they're obsessed with the idea we're EU slaves. I've seen ambitious MPs and news outlets play the result for their own ambitions and say we must brand anyone opposed as traitors to their own people.

I've also met people who are suffering for this, including EU migrants who have been attacked and berated in the street while our government scapegoats them.

I've been very passionate about this but that's because it's, in my opinion, a gigantic failing of us as a society. I'm sure how I've been since June has unintentionally upset some and for that I apologise. But overall this is a gigantic mess, our country showing its worst to the world and taking nationalism as policy. Given we're united here by our love of foreign entertainment, I'd think many would be upset.

 

[kuuderes_shadow]

I'm probably just as upset by the way things turned out as you are, HellCat, but there is definitely a large proportion of leave voters that don't fall into your categories. They just tend to be less visible.

For example, I have met people who voted leave based on libertarian principles, in absolute conviction that a vote to leave would end up with us both still in the single market and with free movement of labour, on the basis that that was what was the best sort of brexit for the country's economy, and that a post-brexit government would do what was best for the economy no matter how awful the leave campaign got. To them, "brexit" very much meant (and still means - these people still seem to think that this is where we will end up) to retain full access to the EU market* but with the ability to refuse to apply any legislation that wasn't necessary for our membership of the single market**. Such people are neither bigoted nor insane. But their position was always, as I see it, fundamentally misguided - they were never going to be the public face of the leave camp, and had little to no representation in the media outside of broadcasting of a few debates on the matter in which one of them participated, and it was always going to be the public face, which is made of your Little Englanders and whatnot, that got taken as "why people voted leave", both by the press and by the government. And it is this public face that seems to be dictating the government's approach (in as much as it exists) at present.

*again, including the labour market.
**ignoring the fact that we've often been the biggest pusher for more legislation in Europe, and have implemented more stringent legislation than that required by the EU more than just about any other country.

 

[Smeelia]

And I understand how our corrupt global economic system works and how it's essentially intertwined itself with not only government but all of society to the point that ripping it out would be like removing a tumour that may kill the patient, but personally I'm willing to take that risk. What's the IMF going to do, shoot us? I'm not particularly interested in stability, and I can think of a few ways to transition that wouldn't be so great for the super rich.

I'm kind of with ayase on this one, although I'm probably more interested in stability. What we really need is cultural/social change towards valuing life and not feeling guilty about expecting a decent standard of living. We have the technology and resources to look after everyone but, instead, we're stuck with this artificial "survival of the fittest" competition where how much of a success you are is measured purely by your ability to acquire money and status with minimal regard to how you acquired them (which itself is basically a corruption of the original concept).

You could argue that this is who we're collectively choosing to be but the existing systems are such a strong influence that it's hard to say we'd still make the same choice if people had the opportunity to stop, think and maybe try something else.

 

[kuuderes_shadow]

Anyone else feel like supporting Ayase's calls for a reign of terror involving the massacre of anyone who has done nothing worse than just having a lot of cash?

Just so I know who are the dangerous lunatics that I need to avoid.

 

[Smeelia]

Anyone else feel like supporting Ayase's calls for a reign of terror involving the massacre of anyone who has done nothing worse than just having a lot of cash?

Just so I know who are the dangerous lunatics that I need to avoid.

Just to clarify, I'm not in favour of killing people to bring about major changes (hence the "valuing life" comment). I do think major changes are essential though (to be fair, I'd imagine most people do) and I don't think it's to our benefit to simply try to do the best with existing systems when they have serious flaws that probably can't just be patched.

Money isn't inherently a bad thing, it's really just a tool after all, but the way our monetary system works at present is a huge problem and is far from the best for the majority of humanity.

 

[ayase]

Anyone else feel like supporting Ayase's calls for a reign of terror involving the massacre of anyone who has done nothing worse than just having a lot of cash?

Just so I know who are the dangerous lunatics that I need to avoid.

Not many people, let's just say the top 1% for now and work out the details later. Less than a million, at any rate. I'll be making sacrifices too, that would include some of my own relatives.

It's been a while since I was called a dangerous lunatic. That is such a turn on.

 

[kuuderes_shadow]

I've nothing more to say to you. Ever.

Other than perhaps "get the hell out of this country". Or even "get the hell off this planet". ISIS might welcome you, provided that you convert to their version of Islam and change your targets - although perhaps you're too bloodthirsty for them. You're proposing to kill twenty times as many as they have, after all. Or five times the number Assad is accused by his opponents of having killed. Or thirty times as many as Mugabe.
Also it's surprisingly close to 10 times the UK's civilian death toll during world war 2 - or almost twice the country's total death toll in that war.

If you were to enact your vile plans then you would be the worst murderer of civilians in this century so far, not just worse than any individual but worse than any group as well. This is not something to be proud of.

And you claim this is okay because it's apparently

Not many people

No.

Just no.

edit: @Smeelia - I didn't really think you would have agreed to that, although I had assumed that it was a case of not having noticed what it was you were agreeing to rather than putting in cryptic hints to indicate opposition to that part.

 

[ayase]

I've nothing more to say to you. Ever.

Bit harsh.

The internet really is no fun any more.

 

[Smeelia]

edit: @Smeelia - I didn't really think you would have agreed to that, although I had assumed that it was a case of not having noticed what it was you were agreeing to rather than putting in cryptic hints to indicate opposition to that part.

Well, I was assuming that ayase wasn't entirely serious about killing a bunch of people and that others would assume the same so I didn't really think it was necessary to expressly state I'd be against killing people. I suppose that's maybe too many assumptions but communication in general can be fairly imprecise so it's not always easy to know exactly how something will be interpreted or how it was intended. I guess a line has to be drawn somewhere and maybe I didn't quite draw it in the right place.

In general, I try to assume that there's no malice behind any post unless there's very strong evidence otherwise. Maybe that's too optimistic but I think it's better that than getting too upset at what people say, especially if it's a case of misinterpretation. Even if people are genuinely saying stupid/horrible things and intending them in the worst way, sometimes talking to them can still be worthwhile. Everyone has their own reasons for posting so, even if I end up responding to a "troll", I try to always do so on my terms.

I guess that's some fairly off-topic rambling but I hope it makes some sense.

 

[Otaku-san]

I've nothing more to say to you. Ever.

I think there's been a fair amount to tens of thousands of deaths, most of which people having very little control what their governing body does, and some very belligerent;inept diplomacy of our own

Given we're united here by our love of foreign entertainment, I'd think many would be upset.

I have quite a fondness of tea, most of which comes from India/China but I wouldn't want to enter a political union with them. Its also worth mentioning that there's been non-EU citizens that have been harassed by a few choice people, of which is completely indefensible, yet so is labours home secretary to say "Anyone that voted Brexit didn't like the look of foreign people". What do I know though? I only read one paper. Nationalism as a policy, you make it sound we've just placed the BUF in power and I'm pretty sure the world has more concerns then worry about what we do. Very nice of Taiwan to do an animation for it though.

 

[ConanThe3rd]

Bit harsh.

The internet really is no fun any more.

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war-room!

 

[Blaize]

So happy with todays ruling. I suspect Hard Brexit is now no longer going to happen or at the very least very very unlikely.

 

[Otaku-san]

Well as it so be, we have mearly changed from being half inside the EU to being half outside it.

 

[ConanThe3rd]

So happy with todays ruling. I suspect Hard Brexit is now no longer going to happen or at the very least very very unlikely.

Well I couldn't quite say that 100%. May strikes me as the sort to start burning the villages when it's clear that she can't win.