Currency vs Brexit: GBP Losses

[Buzz201]

I am so ashamed to be British. This isn't 'negotiating from strength', it's cowardly Trump style evil and actually illegal.

I'm not a fan of Theresa May, but people really need to stop overreacting to everything she does. I'm reasonably confident she's not evil. The Trump comparison is silly, she's not discriminating on the grounds of race or religion, rather the type of visa. And it rather sounds like, according to that article, she's not really committed to this whole thing either.

And the other thing is, though you or I may not be, the general public is clearly opposed to EU migration. She's just doing what the public wants her too, which many would argue is her job...

As for "negotiating from strength", of course she isn't, otherwise she probably wouldn't be doing crazy stuff like this. She has to do crazy, perhaps immoral stuff if she wants a deal. I'd have personally voiced my opposition to their demands for us to continue paying all the money they've budgeted to receive first (that £20bn the papers have mentioned a few times). Quite frankly, I'd have been rather rude and told them where to put it...

 

[HellCat]

If that report and especially the quotes doesn't upset you, I'm amazed.

Everything connected to this farce is a mess and one that is making us a meaner, smaller country.

In a thread where some have advocated a fondness for outright anarchy, I don't think being upset about this is melodramatic. I've been keeping very close tabs on this since June and the stuff the government is prioritising and getting away with is shocking.

And don't assume things will be fine. The government's hopes of falling back on WTO and the commonwealth is going up in flames. No one has an interest in Brexit Britain and is seeking to move to the continent or use Ireland as their door to the EU.

 

[Buzz201]

If that report and especially the quotes doesn't upset you, I'm amazed.

Everything connected to this farce is a mess and one that is making us a meaner, smaller country.

In a thread where some have advocated a fondness for outright anarchy, I don't think being upset about this is melodramatic. I've been keeping very close tabs on this since June and the stuff the government is prioritising and getting away with is shocking.

And don't assume things will be fine. The government's hopes of falling back on WTO and the commonwealth is going up in flames. No one has an interest in Brexit Britain and is seeking to move to the continent or use Ireland as their door to the EU.

Being upset is fine. But the melodrama and over exaggeration isn't. You'll spend your entire worked up and stressed out and it won't be good for you. I know things won't be fine, but getting upset won't change a thing. Brexit has to happen, all of this "let's band together and stop it" **** isn't helpful and it's leading the views of all remainers to be dismissed as undemocratic whining. Leave won the referendum, maybe on bad grounds, but most people don't feel misled and very few would change their votes. We might not be keen on this, but it is the morally correct thing to happen. Until we see what deal she gets, it's hard to do anything, especially if you don't want to undermine her negotiation.

And quite frankly, save the fascist dictator cards for when she actually becomes one, no? She inevitably will, but let's not jump the gun.

 

[Just Passing Through]

"Evil" is a bit melodramatic don't you think?

Evil? No. Thoughtless, cruel, uncaring, lacking in compassion, complete and utter bastards, most definitely.

I'll save the 'evil' appellation for what this government is doing to the disabled, and the NHS, and Education, the Prison Service (have I left anyhing out?)

 

[Smeelia]

I can't say I'm fond of the things the current government is doing, but I can see a case for putting a bit of control on EU immigration while it's status is being negotiated. As I understand it, they're not saying that people absolutely won't get in but that it just won't be guaranteed from when the negotiations start. I'm not sure I'd actually agree with the idea, I don't think it's realistic to assume that we'll get substantially more immigrants than usual during the negotiation period and the effort of carrying out the extra checks probably isn't worth it.

Brexit has to happen, all of this "let's band together and stop it" **** isn't helpful and it's leading the views of all remainers to be dismissed as undemocratic whining. Leave won the referendum, maybe on bad grounds, but most people don't feel misled and very few would change their votes. We might not be keen on this, but it is the morally correct thing to happen.

I don't think it's fair to say that it's morally correct, at the very least it's not an entirely clear case. The referendum was decided by less than 2% of people who voted, if looked at by country then the split was even (with two for remain and two against). That just counts the people who voted, the outcome will affect a lot more people than that. The referendum itself was poorly handled and primarily driven by misleading campaigns. The referendum wasn't even legally binding, it was supposed to find out how people felt about the issue. I'd question if it was especially effective at finding out what people really felt, except perhaps to highlight that there are an awful lot of different views and feelings that have all sorts of different reasons behind them.

Moving forward with leaving the EU doesn't have to happen, at least it doesn't have to happen now and with seemingly minimal consideration. There's no urgent need to proceed with any course of action that could have significant repercussions, there's plenty of time to consider alternatives and examine what people really want and what might actually be best for people.

I don't think the issues are simple enough that there's an absolute case either way. The EU covers so many different things that the issues people have might be more effectively dealt with directly rather than by simply changing our association with the EU. Even if we leave the EU, we might still face the same issues depending on the results of the negotiations. That seems much more likely if the people undertaking negotiations don't actually know exactly what the people they're representing want.

In a thread where some have advocated a fondness for outright anarchy, I don't think being upset about this is melodramatic.

It's maybe worth noting that Anarchy is essentially an absence of rules/laws and enforcement, rather than having any inherent bad qualities. An ideal society wouldn't need laws because people would be decent to each other without needing to be forced or told how to be decent. I guess that's maybe tough to imagine.

I do think there's something of an issue with people getting too attached to existing laws/institutions and assuming that they have some kind of inherent superiority to the alternatives. I think it's better if people understand the reasons behind things, then it's also easier to move away from ways of doing things that are not longer relevant or suitable for the way we (want to) live.

That's probably enough rambling for now.

 

[ayase]

That's all pretty crappy alright @Just Passing Through, but as far as I'm aware none of that is a result of the Brexit vote. I'm no fan of this Tory government or much that they've done, but they're still just following the path every other British government of the last 30 years or so has been going down. New Labour barely deviated from the course Thatcher set and pretty much everything they did proved easily undoable.

I'm pretty dismayed by their attitude to public services but in fact, and I say this as someone from the left, they have a point about certain benefits payments being too high or wrong. I live in an area with high unemployment and high disability claims. It's not particularly encouraging to struggling poor working people and families to see people on disability benefits with brand new cars or unemployed single mothers having their rent on a house paid for them while unemployed single men are treated like absolute crap.

Government policy to me should be about fairness, and while you might well laugh at the idea of this government being fair (I'm having a chuckle to myself) when ordinary people can see the unfairness and stupidity of certain policies something has to be done about that. And maybe the answer is a basic income for everyone. But whatever it is, it surely isn't the broken and unfair system we have currently.

 

[Blaize]

I say this as someone from the left, they have a point about certain benefits payments being too high or wrong. I live in an area with high unemployment and high disability claims. It's not particularly encouraging to struggling poor working people and families to see people on disability benefits with brand new cars or unemployed single mothers having their rent on a house paid for them while unemployed single men are treated like absolute crap.

You see this is where you have entirely missed the point. Your blaming those in need instead of the real issue and that's unemployment. This is unfortunately the mistake that has led to things like Brexit and the issues in the modern society.

The issues with unemployment are not because of people on benefits or immigrants, it's those in power. The rich and greedy parts of society at the top and the corporations that are so fixated on disgusting amounts of profit. Why your there pointing at those in need and crying foul the Government are laughing themselves into a stupor. Because it means your not blaming the actual cause of the problem. It's this complete blind ignorance by so much of modern Britain that we continue to spiral further and further away from the actual solution.

Thing is before the banking crisis no one cared about those on benefits, immigrants or council housing. Because people were doing better than them, the middle classes if you will. But suddenly once that bubble burst suddenly the have's also became the have not's. Once in need they suddenly became very angry about these people they would often belittle or at least ignore.

Brexit is the same thing, immigration in the UK has happened throughout it's entire history and in modern times it's always been occurring. But when the going was good people ignored it. Sure racists weren't cool with it but normal people had no issue with it, it wasn't front page news because no one cared. It didn't seem to effect there lives so why worry? Then the financial crisis happens, the bubble bursts and all of a sudden immigrants is all anyone can talk about. They like people in need of benefit are suddenly looked upon as the cause of the problem but they simply aren't. How could they be? They didn't cause the crisis, that was the greed of the rich, corporations and bankers. The very top of society making flippant gambles on the hopes of themselves becoming more filthy rich, while also knowing that should it all come crashing down they will be fine. Because there money isn't really in the system, it's not there money they were gambling with.

So stop blaming your neighbor for your troubles, stop blaming those less able than yourself, stop blaming those of a different background be it place of birth or environment. None of them are to blame, not even a little.

For every cut to services and benefits the government is making just know that that money could so easily be found elsewhere but they choose not to in order to protect the system that got so many of them to the top in the first place.

I'm so fed up of people blaming or pointing fingers at others who couldn't possibly be to blame for their own troubles. Joe Bloggs didn't lose his job at the factory or high street retailer because so and so next door can't walk properly or because the family at the end of the street speak differently. Joe Bloggs lost his job because of the greedy rich who are obsessed with only getting richer, the banks that provide this illegal service (HSBC anyone?) and the corporations who use Tax havens to circumnavigate paying what they owe in order to make more disgustingly large profits.

Open your eyes people, until this country does nothing will change. Conservatism is the cancer of modern society, we don't live in the 50's anymore. Wake up!

@ayase not all of this rant is directed at you (less you at all really more just that single point about benefits), it kinda spiraled into something more.

 

[Buzz201]

I'm so fed up of people blaming or pointing fingers at others who couldn't possibly be to blame for their own troubles. Joe Bloggs didn't lose his job at the factory or high street retailer because so and so next door can't walk properly or because the family at the end of the street speak differently. Joe Bloggs lost his job because of the greedy rich who are obsessed with only getting richer, the banks that provide this illegal service (HSBC anyone?) and the corporations who use Tax havens to circumnavigate paying what they owe in order to make more disgustingly large profits.

Open your eyes people, until this country does nothing will change. Conservatism is the cancer of modern society, we don't live in the 50's anymore. Wake up!

Where do you put your money if not the banks? Who wants that responsibility? Who wants to store money somewhere with no interest and no possibility of interest (especially given inflation)? It would always have to be a bank or a bank type system. The only difference would presumably be that one was government run and the other wasn't, not that nationalisation really changes bank's behaviour.

And what happens if they can't avoid tax, companies put prices up or they leave. Enforcing tax laws doesn't improving things for the little guy, it probably just makes them worse -- it makes it more expensive to things and probably results in unemployment and redundancies. Sometimes you have to tolerate bad things for the overall good of society.

As nice as this line of thinking is, it isn't realistic, not even slightly. And as much as you may hate the wealthy and wish for a more equal society. I think there has to be some form of motivation, something that inspires people to work hard and fulfil their societal duties. Unfortunately, society has yet to come up with something that does as good of a job at motivating people than wealth and inequality.

 

[serpantino]

Being on benefits isn't the permanent holiday some people seem to think it is, but others will always be arrogant because the media loves to find the villains and showcase them as the average benefit claimant, and the government loves it too because it means it can strong arm us all and spit on our basic human rights, all whilst getting the support of the idiotic masses who can only see it from their own selfish perspective; right up until it affects them.

On benefits you get constantly harassed to prove it by people who aren't even qualified to understand your condition, let alone judge you based on it and good luck having a real life. If you want to actually get married, live together etc, you can kiss your benefits goodbye as your partner is expected to pay for everything if they work any more than 20 hours a week and the low income support etc is a hell of a lot lower.

Money that isn't earned has no value and you don't exactly get enough to live a life of luxury, definitely not enough to make any worthwhile savings. After a while being at home gets very dull and everything loses it's lustre.

As far as getting back into work there is no REAL help. The back to work courses are a disgrace to anyone who's condition isn't good for the company's image and can act as a poster child for their investor in people award. (which is a joke anyway, but that's another story.) Sure there might be no discrimination allowed but you try proving that when you got turned down for a job.


So yeah, it's not all rosy and the government only cares about hard numbers so will happily pick on the easily manipulated and more vulnerable rather than the scammers who know how to play the system.

I've personally known people who have committed suicide because of the benefit overhauls in the last 6 years as a result of harassment from the ATOS era (predictably now scapegoated by the government) and more recently one individual who fell victim to the changes PiP brought about.... but hey what does it matter? At least they're not claiming hard working people's money anymore.

 

[Blaize]

As nice as this line of thinking is, it isn't realistic, not even slightly. And as much as you may hate the wealthy and wish for a more equal society. I think there has to be some form of motivation, something that inspires people to work hard and fulfil their societal duties. Unfortunately, society has yet to come up with something that does as good of a job at motivating people than wealth and inequality.

I don't hate the wealthy as much as I hate the obscenity of said wealth and the means by which they obtain it.

Off Shore banking means someone can earn money in the UK and not be taxed on it. Tax havens again provide this same service to corporations.

By doing this they are removing that money from the economy, they are stealing from those that gave them the opportunity to obtain that wealth to begin with. Everytime they do this there is less money to go around.

It's really basic stuff. i.e

• I work all month to earn my wage.
• I then buy a Phone.
• The sale is taxed.
• That money then can be pumped back into the economy at the benefit of society as a whole. It's a simple system.

Thing is the company selling me that Phone is supposed to be taxed on the profit they made on it too, basically as a thank you to our economy and society that provided them with the opportunity to sell me that Phone. That tax can then benefit the economy and society while also providing a fair marketplace.

But that company is in a Tax Haven and they aren't providing this last piece in the way they should be. They are taking that right to sell me the Phone and just leaving. They are enjoying the benefits of living here without paying the rent. This is a problem, a huge problem.

You say they would only raise the prices right if they had to pay Tax? Wrong! Because if they were being taxed properly and playing by the rules then that means competition can thrive. Businesses will be competing to get me to buy their Phone. Chances are I'm buying the one that is the best deal for me. So if they raise the Price of their Phone due to the Tax increase, I'm no longer buying their Phone and that's no good for them is it? So they don't raise the price, some profit is better than no profit at all.

This is how the world is supposed to function, the rules in place are supposed to provide this. But currently that isn't happening due to the reasons I mentioned in a previous comment. The structure of society ,when played by the rules that are actually in place, works. But too many people, companies and banks aren't playing by the rules. Hence the issues we are currently having and will continue to have until this **** stops.

A good start would be for people to realise what the actual problem is rather than blaming those around them.

 

[ayase]

@Blaize I've been unemployed and on benefits. I know it isn't easy. But then I was a single man in my 20s, who the government apparently hate. Single mother with kids? Fine, have your rent paid, no pressure to work. Can go to the doctors and say "Ow my knee" and walk with a crutch in public? Hell, have an extra £60 a week to lease yourself a nice new car. Meanwhile people on JSA are expected to sell theirs (what a great help getting to interviews and commuting, eh?).

I have nothing, nothing at all against a fair safety net benefit system which helps people who are really in need of help or genuinely disabled. I do think unemployment is a major, real issue which needs addressing (but can't be any more really, thanks globalisation and union suppression). I hate the banks with equal vehemence to yourself. But there are many people who do need the benefit system but find it constantly up their arse just looking for an excuse to tell them to sod off and die in the streets, and likewise many frauds who don't need it but can seemingly manage to use it as a source of virtually unquestioned free money.

My problem is not the idea of the welfare state, it's the staggeringly corrupt and unfair way it's administered. When some people have to sell everything they own and fight to prove they're worth £70 a week but others get £1000 a month rent paid for them because they had kids they can't afford. The current £20,000 a year "benefit cap" people are moaning about is higher than most of the working poor's yearly wages. I'd set it at £12,000. If you can't afford to live on a thousand pounds a month then you're doing something very, very wrong. While I'm at it I'd can child benefit. If you can't afford your children any more the state will simply repossess and raise them for you. Maybe train them to be Judges like out of 2000 AD to be unleashed to dispense justice on the corrupt bankers, politicians and fraudsters alike.

 

[Blaize]

@Blaize I've been unemployed and on benefits. I know it isn't easy. But then I was a single man in my 20s, who the government apparently hate. Single mother with kids? Fine, have your rent paid, no pressure to work. Can go to the doctors and say "Ow my knee" and walk with a crutch in public? Hell, have an extra £60 a week to lease yourself a nice new car. Meanwhile people on JSA are expected to sell theirs (what a great help getting to interviews and commuting, eh?).

I have nothing, nothing at all against a fair safety net benefit system which helps people who are really in need of help or genuinely disabled. I do think unemployment is a major, real issue which needs addressing (but can't be any more really, thanks globalisation and union suppression). I hate the banks with equal vehemence to yourself. But there are many people who do need the benefit system but find it constantly up their arse just looking for an excuse to tell them to sod off and die in the streets, and likewise many frauds who don't need it but can seemingly manage to use it as a source of virtually unquestioned free money.

My problem is not the idea of the welfare state, it's the staggeringly corrupt and unfair way it's administered. When some people have to sell everything they own and fight to prove they're worth £70 a week but others get £1000 a month rent paid for them because they had kids they can't afford. The current £20,000 a year "benefit cap" people are moaning about is higher than most of the working poor's yearly wages. I'd set it at £12,000. If you can't afford to live on a thousand pounds a month then you're doing something very, very wrong. While I'm at it I'd can child benefit. If you can't afford your children any more the state will simply repossess and raise them for you. Maybe train them to be Judges like out of 2000 AD to be unleashed to dispense justice on the corrupt bankers, politicians and fraudsters alike.

Again though the issue isn't the benefits is it? It's how much the JSA is! It's not enough to provide someone unemployed when they are in need or shall I say in need of benefit. Do you not see that? JSA won't go up because the benefits of those in need goes down now will it? I also think you are drastically overestimating how much people on benefits actually get.

Before the crisis people didn't care because they were doing better than those on benefits. When that changed after the crisis (I once again emphasize at no fault of those on benefit) the finger started to get pointed at others instead of the mirror. Suddenly I can't afford the payments on my second car or my loan for my conservatory I had installed a few years back. The banks caused this problem, but it was only when the have's became the have not's that they started to look around them for victims to blame. And who's easier to blame than the most needy of society am I right?

 

[ayase]

Well here it is, straight from the government website - This is the cap that people are complaining is unfair and that they need more than to live:

I fail to see how anyone couldn't manage on that. I was earning just slightly more than the lowest cap of £260 a week when I was working full time.

It's still so difficult for me to get my politics across to people as they always presume so much. I'm not some kind of callous free-market "on your bike" conservative, but nor am I particularly comfortable with the left's knee-jerk defence of the benefits system as it is and refusal to admit how broken and corrupt it is. I punch up and I punch down. My politics is to punch everyone who needs punching regardless of their place in the social order.

 

[Buzz201]

I don't hate the wealthy as much as I hate the obscenity of said wealth and the means by which they obtain it.

Off Shore banking means someone can earn money in the UK and not be taxed on it. Tax havens again provide this same service to corporations.

By doing this they are removing that money from the economy, they are stealing from those that gave them the opportunity to obtain that wealth to begin with. Everytime they do this there is less money to go around.

It's really basic stuff. i.e

• I work all month to earn my wage.
• I then buy a Phone.
• The sale is taxed.
• That money then can be pumped back into the economy at the benefit of society as a whole. It's a simple system.

Thing is the company selling me that Phone is supposed to be taxed on the profit they made on it too, basically as a thank you to our economy and society that provided them with the opportunity to sell me that Phone. That tax can then benefit the economy and society while also providing a fair marketplace.

But that company is in a Tax Haven and they aren't providing this last piece in the way they should be. They are taking that right to sell me the Phone and just leaving. They are enjoying the benefits of living here without paying the rent. This is a problem, a huge problem.

You say they would only raise the prices right if they had to pay Tax? Wrong! Because if they were being taxed properly and playing by the rules then that means competition can thrive. Businesses will be competing to get me to buy their Phone. Chances are I'm buying the one that is the best deal for me. So if they raise the Price of their Phone due to the Tax increase, I'm no longer buying their Phone and that's no good for them is it? So they don't raise the price, some profit is better than no profit at all.

This is how the world is supposed to function, the rules in place are supposed to provide this. But currently that isn't happening due to the reasons I mentioned in a previous comment. The structure of society ,when played by the rules that are actually in place, works. But too many people, companies and banks aren't playing by the rules. Hence the issues we are currently having and will continue to have until this **** stops.

A good start would be for people to realise what the actual problem is rather than blaming those around them.

You seem to miss the part where everyone puts up prices, so whilst they are all competing, they're all competing at a higher price range than they would have been without it. All it takes is one to do it, then that opens the floodgates for everyone else.

 

[Blaize]

Well here it is, straight from the government website - This is the cap that people are complaining is unfair and that they need more than to live:

I fail to see how anyone couldn't manage on that. I was earning just slightly more than the lowest cap of £260 a week when I was working full time.

Cap is the ceiling, the absolutely most that someone can get. The average is far far less. Not only that but the median income of this country is still higher than all those caps.

You seem to miss the part where everyone puts up prices, so whilst they are all competing, they're all competing at a higher price range than they would have been without it. All it takes is one to do it, then that opens the floodgates for everyone else.

Except they wouldn't because they are in competition to sell me their product. You say is all it takes is one to do it and the floodgates will open for the prices to rise. I would argue the exact opposite because in the end they are trying to sell a product.

For example

'If 10 of us on this forum were all selling a copy of 'Princess Mononoke' on DVD and we all agreed to sell this DVD thats probably worth £5 for £6 then we all have an equal chance of selling our DVD and also an equal chance of making more money, it's upto the customer to decide who to buy it from and now they have to pay £6 for it.

But if one of us was to lower their DVD to £5 their chances are suddenly much more likely to sell the DVD, sure they might not make £6 but this way they actually make money. They are providing the best option for the customer financially and as a result have given themselves the best chance of making that sale.'

Surely you understand this right?

 

[Lambadelta]

Surely you understand this right?

In terms of buying a product from a company you have forgotten something very important. Brand loyalty and product ecosystems. Companies like Samsung and Apple if they raise their prices (which they have done) people will still pay those prices since there is a certain amount of loyalty asserted to the trust of the companies products. Sure there are other products from competing companies that are cheaper, and other ecosystems that would provide a similar service, but people want trust meaning that their competitors aren't much of an issue as they already won their paying customers support years ago before these currency issues.

 

[ayase]

Except they wouldn't because they are in competition to sell me their product. You say is all it takes is one to do it and the floodgates will open for the prices to rise. I would argue the exact opposite because in the end they are trying to sell a product.

For example

'If 10 of us on this forum were all selling a copy of 'Princess Mononoke' on DVD and we all agreed to sell this DVD thats probably worth £5 for £6 then we all have an equal chance of selling our DVD and also an equal chance of making more money, it's upto the customer to decide who to buy it from and now they have to pay £6 for it.

But if one of us was to lower their DVD to £5 their chances are suddenly much more likely to sell the DVD, sure they might not make £6 but this way they actually make money. They are providing the best option for the customer financially and as a result have given themselves the best chance of making that sale.'

But going back to your point about unemployment (which I completely agree with) consumer prices don't actually need to go down, they need to go up if we want to increase employment in this country, since we have a minimum wage and globally, a very high minimum wage. If we want to employ people here in the UK, companies need to be able to sell their locally produced goods for more than they cost to produce. The competition and lower prices are coming from goods produced in countries with very low wages and very little in terms of workers' rights.

The only ways to counteract that is protectionist economic policies to protect your country's workforce (which apparently, bafflingly, is now thought of as being right-wing if the reaction to Trump's ideas of making things in America and introducing tariffs is anything to go by) or unionising and mobilising the workers of other countries to demand higher pay. And there's nothing in it for the global corporations to do that unless people introduce protectionist policies and threaten to stop importing. I'm in favour of fair trade rather than free trade myself, but I think even if we leave free trade alone capitalism will ultimately destroy itself anyway in its perpetual race to the bottom.

 

[Blaize]

In terms of buying a product from a company you have forgotten something very important. Brand loyalty and product ecosystems. Companies like Samsung and Apple if they raise their prices (which they have done) people will still pay those prices since there is a certain amount of loyalty asserted to the trust of the companies products. Sure there are other products from competing companies that are cheaper, and other ecosystems that would provide a similar service, but people want trust meaning that their competitors aren't much of an issue as they already won their paying customers support years ago before these currency issues.

This is mostly irrelevant because brand loyalty has nothing to do with Tax avoidance. That's a relationship between the consumer and the company. It would exist if Apple paid their Taxes or not.

But it's worth mentioning at the same time though that while Apple prices are higher they might actually be too high if they had to pay the correct Tax and that brand loyalty might not be so strong. Apple products are nice because they can afford them to be while also remaining pretty competitive. This gives them an unfair advantage so to speak.

For example my Phone I'm trying to sell is nice and I've played by all the tax rules etc and I charge say 90% of a new iPhone for it. Sure it's nowhere near as good but it's the best I can do for that price and still make a healthy profit. But Apple have made products far superior and they only charge 10% more, they can do this because they can afford to, because they aren't playing by the rules and paying the correct Tax. Lets say they do start paying the correct Tax and suddenly they need to charge 150% of the original price of the iPhone to continue to make that huge profit. Suddenly brand loyalty might not be so strong and Apple profits would tank. So they would have to lower the price of the phone to make it more competitive.

But going back to your point about unemployment (which I completely agree with) consumer prices don't actually need to go down, they need to go up if we want to increase employment in this country, since we have a minimum wage and globally, a very high minimum wage. If we want to employ people here in the UK, companies need to be able to sell their locally produced goods for more than they cost to produce. The competition and lower prices are coming from goods produced in countries with very low wages and very little in terms of workers' rights.

The price of products don't need to go up, wages need to go up because inflation has far surpassed the inflation of wages. A trend that has gone on for a very long time. Companies are already selling products at inflated prices to counteract the **** up of the financial crisis. Stores are closing because of inflated prices that customers just can't afford to pay. Why? Because there isn't enough money to go round. Why? Because the money is leaving the economy.

 

[ayase]

But if wages go up, then the price of locally produced products needs to rise even further so the companies employing the workers and selling the products can stay profitable. It's globalisation keeping wages down and creating unemployment due to creating global competition in the job market (why pay someone £7 an hour to make something in the UK when someone in China will make it for 20p an hour?) not consumer prices.

What happened was that governments stopped caring about the people of their country and started caring about what personal profit they could make out of deregulation and free trade. Thatcher and Reagan are mainly to blame for this.

-----

One Day Later Edit:

Not everybody is comfortable with the idea that politics is a guilty addiction. But it is. - Hunter S. Thompson

I feel like I should really swear off politics. As a control freak anything that affects me but is out of my control pisses me off to no end and then I just sound like an angry, hateful person. And perhaps I am to some degree. But I do have love and compassion for people as well. The problem I have with the way the country (and indeed the world) is run is that the people deserving of anger and hate always seem to win, and the people deserving of love and compassion always seem to lose. And what do you do about that as one person? Stop caring so it no longer bothers you? Being part of any political movement requires compromise, something I'm equally averse to. Partly I want things to get better, partly I don't think they can and everything just needs to burn so we can start with a clean slate. I dunno.

 

[HellCat]

Theresa May laughing like some insane combination of a Disney villain and a trained seal as the Tories outlined how the latest budget will again punish the poor has gone viral enough that even Japan have noticed.