US Election November 5th

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is indeed a complex situation; businesses benefit from access to cheap labour. But then you could argue that screws over local workers. But then businesses point out that locals refuse to do many menial jobs at the rates they are able to pay. But then, does that mean the businesses are being greedy, or just that the market won't pay enough for the end product?

Regardless, in future decades I highly suspect that many "blue collar" jobs will be performed by machinery; meaning all such workers lose out. We may then have a new generation of a Luddite movement (protests against automation, rather than immigration).

It's perhaps an easier decision with skilled roles; where it does make sense to be open to immigration if you're struggling to get local staff.
Businesses do benefit but governments have to make it possible to do so. There is also the expectation now that products in the local supermarket must be at bargain basement prices so it also creates a pressure to depress wages and so reduce costs.
With the skilled roles, when governments made it easier to import offshore skills to address perceived skills shortages that didn't actually exist, then whole IT departments were laid waste and replaced with cheaper imported people. I saw training schemes shut down as it was cheaper to buy in skills than to train the local population.
So, my point is that the governments are the enablers and start the process, usually for ideological and dogmatic reasons, both left and right, it is then that businesses take advantage.
 
You make it far too simplistic. It's always 'the rich' that are causing it. ...
Causes are many and various but in so far as a problem could be rectified by more money then looking to the rich is simple logic. Higher taxation!
Imaging Musk's mega wealth distributed where it could do most good - it wouldn't be in space travel or electronic communications - it'd be in poverty relief and aid.
 
Causes are many and various but in so far as a problem could be rectified by more money then looking to the rich is simple logic. Higher taxation!
Imaging Musk's mega wealth distributed where it could do most good - it wouldn't be in space travel or electronic communications - it'd be in poverty relief and aid.
Countries like India and China continue their space and communications programs while not addressing social problems but your solution is to take money from individuals?
 
Businesses do benefit but governments have to make it possible to do so. There is also the expectation now that products in the local supermarket must be at bargain basement prices so it also creates a pressure to depress wages and so reduce costs.
twas ever thus. Cheap goods through increased productivity or imports means less pressure on wages but fewer jobs. This has been the main bone of contention throughout the industrial revolution and before.
With the skilled roles, when governments made it easier to import offshore skills to address perceived skills shortages that didn't actually exist, then whole IT departments were laid waste and replaced with cheaper imported people. I saw training schemes shut down as it was cheaper to buy in skills than to train the local population.
answer is stricter imposed minimum wages
So, my point is that the governments are the enablers and start the process, usually for ideological and dogmatic reasons, both left and right, it is then that businesses take advantage.
Responsibility lies with those who have the power - mainly governments and/or finance. This is why we have trade unions and the labour movement - so that ordinary people have power too.
 
Countries like India and China continue their space and communications programs while not addressing social problems but your solution is to take money from individuals?
To take money from where it is not needed to where it is.
 
Causes are many and various but in so far as a problem could be rectified by more money then looking to the rich is simple logic. Higher taxation!
Imaging Musk's mega wealth distributed where it could do most good - it wouldn't be in space travel or electronic communications - it'd be in poverty relief and aid.
And then once it's been distributed, converted into the goods and services that the poor arguably need and the funds are no more? What then? What will be the next magic money tree.
You might also have noticed that we a getting a bit overcrowded on this planet. Life on this planet is also vulnerable to a whole host of cosmic possibilities that could wipe it out. As the dominant intelligent species, we have a duty to protect the life here by creating other places where it can thrive, space exploration is the only way this can happen.
As some bloke said, 'The poor you will always have'. Taking money from people to give to them will only give them temporary respite, they need opportunity, not largesse.
 
In June to August 2024, the employment rate for people aged 16-64 was 75.0%. Do you call this not far off full employment? I call it 1 in 4 of working age unemployed.
I call it one in four enjoying the leisure that an industrialised world should be providing after so many years of tech advance and increased productivity.
Not quite like that of course - they tend to be not too well off. Should be a much higher ratio - they used to talk about 3 day weeks for everybody, and so on.
People seem to forget that a basic definition of "work" is what you have to do but would rather not if it could be avoided. The less of it the better.
A good job means doing something which you would like to do even if you didn't have to.
 
And then once it's been distributed, converted into the goods and services that the poor arguably need and the funds are no more? What then? What will be the next magic money tree.
No a continuous program of redistribution - what goes around comes around. This is what we have already but just not efficiently run, not least due to objectors such as yourself!
 
Causes are many and various but in so far as a problem could be rectified by more money then looking to the rich is simple logic. Higher taxation!
Imaging Musk's mega wealth distributed where it could do most good - it wouldn't be in space travel or electronic communications - it'd be in poverty relief and aid.
All the other nonsensical tosh you posted.
Why would anyone want socialism? It seems the answer to everything is take everything from the strivers and give it away and then when they have nothing left tax everyone until the squeak.
Keep everyone at an artificial level through some sort of procrustean taxation.
Suppress all ambition, and keep the human race tied to low technology in a socialist h-e-l-l :rolleyes: where everyone is equal waiting for the inevitable planet killer that will wipe out humanity and possibly the only spark of intelligence in the galaxy.
No ambition, and no real future for our children and humanity.

So, why would anyone want socialism?
 
This is essentially nothing more than buying votes, on the other hand given the number of voters then youwould need to spend an awful lot to actually make a difference. I think the influence might come from the simple fact that this guy is willing to spend a million to get a vote so therefore if he thinks Trump is worth it then who am I to disagree !
What is the moral difference between paying people to vote in a particular way before the election vs promising to "pay" them after the election through promised policy changes.

Simplistically the only difference is that the former provides certainty to the recipient, the latter relies upon a politician actually doing that which they promised - something of a risk I suspect!!
 
....

So, why would anyone want socialism?
Because in an unregulated free market wealth and power inevitably accumulate in fewer and fewer hands and economies collapse.
This is why we already have a large socialist element on our economy and the way it runs.
There is no alternative.
 
What is the moral difference between paying people to vote in a particular way before the election vs promising to "pay" them after the election through promised policy changes.
Well if you can't see it I doubt you would understand any answers!
First of all, policy promises are not about paying the electorate, they are supposed to be about promising to run things effectively for the benefit of all of us.
 
And then once it's been distributed, converted into the goods and services that the poor arguably need and the funds are no more? What then? What will be the next magic money tree.
You might also have noticed that we a getting a bit overcrowded on this planet. Life on this planet is also vulnerable to a whole host of cosmic possibilities that could wipe it out. As the dominant intelligent species, we have a duty to protect the life here by creating other places where it can thrive, space exploration is the only way this can happen.
As some bloke said, 'The poor you will always have'. Taking money from people to give to them will only give them temporary respite, they need opportunity, not largesse.
USA and U.K. have high levels of wealth inequality.

Many other Western economies like Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark etc have lower levels of wealth inequality and higher standards of living for the majority.


So your argument that fairer wealth distribution doesn’t achieve anything, is not true.

Donald Trump is going to increase wealth inequality, so ordinary working people will be worse off

Donald Trump will cut public services…..who benefits from public services: ordinary working citizens
 
USA and U.K. have high levels of wealth inequality.

Many other Western economies like Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark etc have lower levels of wealth inequality and higher standards of living for the majority.


So your argument that fairer wealth distribution doesn’t achieve anything, is not true.

Donald Trump is going to increase wealth inequality, so ordinary working people will be worse off

Donald Trump will cut public services…..who benefits from public services: ordinary working citizens
Stripping the assets from the rich and distributing may give some short term relief but will not ultimately achieve anything as you need to have continual source of equivalent funding but you've just removed it and now will have to impoverish the next layer of 'rich' to continue the distribution of your largesse. Wealth inequality will decrease but eventually you have a society where everyone earns the same, has the same and any ambition is ruthlessly cut down by imposition of aggressive taxation.
So, why would anyone want socialism?
 
A question for the Europhiles seeing as how Brexit keeps popping up in the Trump thread.

Inevitably the agenda of the EU mandarins is to create an all encompassing federal Europe, anyone who can't see that is either blind or stupid.

Citation or it didn't happen.
Also, as already pointed out to you - you are deliberately insulting. If all you have is insults - that signals a lack of relevant material and evidence.
Counter argument - "Inevitably", each of the EU Member Nations act only their own interests and "Inevitably" there would not be a 100% agreement for a full Federation program - ergo, it wouldn't happen (see later).

Your proposed argument is also completely jam packed with Fallacious Arguments.


allowing some obscure Orwellian government in say Brussels et al having virtually total control over most aspects of our lives with the UK just a marginalised outlier in this huge 'one-nation' federal Europe or do we as a sovereign nation choose freedom to make our own decisions?

LOL. Outlandish and absurd imaginary future. I'm not sure whether you ever took on board (which wouldn't be unusual behaviour for you) that the UK, while it was still an EU Member had something called a "VETO". Ergo, if you were absolutely serious about not "allowing some obscure Orwelian government" to have control of all UK domestic legislation, then your best and only true tactic would be to remain as a Member and to exercise your VETO.



We saw how difficult it was to extricate the UK from the EU after the Brexit vote, just think how inordinately more difficult it would be decades down the line.

I completely disagree with this absurd premise and have solid foundation to do so: Any move toward a Federation of Europe would come from debate and discussion and negotiation amongst the Member States - and the legal requirement while drafting any such (absurd and outlandish imaginary future) would be to include a get-out clause for those Member States not wishing to go for Full Federation. All it would take during these negotiations would be to apply the time alloted for those discussions to make sure the get-out clause was in your favour. Full Federation would be not be in accordance with International Law if it sought to force or strong-arm Member States into a new agreement which included Federation of Europe.

This is the reason and evidence that confirms your claim of "inevitably, blah, blah, blah..." is a false narrative that exists only in some peoples imagination. It was probably placed into people's imagination as a known lie, alongside all of the other known lies, during the Brexit debates. I will leave it open for you to confirm that is where you got this absurd imaginary future from and I will definitely stop short of calling people gullible for swallowing the lies. I hold this value quite dearly (not for an unlimited amount of time, though...):
Contempt for the Con Man; Compassion for the Conned.

The primary driver for the Brexit voting result was undoubtedly migration and that issue has still not gone away and I fear if not addressed will ultimately lead to a rise of the far right which is undesirable to say the least.

Probably. In a word, racism. In all of its guises.


I've never quite understood the open-border mindset. What kind of a screwed up mentality would actually even consider it?

Just because you don't understand something - that doesn't make it bad.
Also, aggressive and insulting.

In actual fact, the "Open Borders" which you complain about here was a very positive thing - not just for movement of People, but also for Goods and Services. Probably the biggest negative to the UK Economy due to Brexit is the loss of Open Border. For anyone in favour of Capitalism and Market Economies, an Open Border is highly desirable.

If your beef is with immigration due to Open Border, then history shows that you are barking up the wrong tree. For very strong reasons. First is the fact that the UK did not sign up to Schengen. UK used its VETO. UK therefore retained full control of immigration whilst still inside the EU. Perhaps this is another of your notions picked up from the Con Man Again - Compassion for the Conned. (Not for unlimited time, though).
Second is that some "immigrants" (I'm guessing exactly the ones that you are against) could be sent back to the EU, but only while the UK remained a member of the EU. This is different from deportation, etc, and was an entirely EU construct - which the UK had a strong hand in negotiating in the first place, LOL.
Third, now that we are out of EU, it is explicitly obvious that the situation with immigration has been exacerbated, on many fronts. Amongst these drawbacks is that EU workers were made to feel unwelcome in the UK. The more outward and open stance that Brexit has emboldened racists to more outwardly behave, is part and parcel of the way in which Brexit was broached by a thinly-veiled racist agenda. Those EU workers, even though in most cases were "welcome to legally remain" voted with their feet. This has had a strong negative effect on the overall UK Economy. Also exacerbated is that EU workers no longer wanted to apply for UK job vacancies that the UK workforce could not fill. Which means the UK has been forced to reach out wider afield to obtain workers to fill vacancies. Tens of thousands of job vacancies still exist that can't be filled, years after Brexit.

This has only been a round and significant negative to the UK, with zero up sides.


No doubt you will claim (without evidence) that this is all the fault of "the left", when in fact nobody on "the left" has EVER voted to make their society worse off. The clue is in the name: "the left". Brexit meant that the UK voted to place economic sanctions on the UK.

Trump love him or hate him has got that one right!

Oh, how so? From a purely racist viewpoint, you are quite correct. From pretty much all other viewpoints, you are probably not correct.

For instance, the threat of mass deportations - are you aware how much of a negative impact that would have on the US Economy?

Go on, have a guess... Or better still, do some searching.

The sad truth is that USA has voted in large part to mass deportations, because they have been Conned into believing (not difficult in the case of the Deep South and Confederate followers...) that the cost of living crisis has been brought about solely by the influx of "undocumented migrants". Nothing could be further from the truth, if we are to use facts and evidence to substantiate our views. Instead of accepting a lie (because you are predisposed to find that lie appealling) from an egotist standing at a lectern backed up by another egotist controlling the social media narrative, backed up by another egotist foreign antagonist leader...


He wants to put America first...what exactly is wrong with that?

No he doesn't. That is a Con. He wants to put himself first above all else, then he wants to put his friends and allies above the rest, and he cares not one jot about the common US Citizen.


Of course the EU would make an example out of the people of the UK to punish them for voting to leave the EU, that was inevitable and the UK's Brexit negotiators failed miserably to achieve a decent trading agreements but now is the time to address those failures.

You misunderstand and appear to believe a lie about deliberate harm. That was not an agenda item. There is not really an ability to "negotiate" with EU to get better terms than are prescribed in the Articles which outline the method of extricating a State from EU membership. The UK is just another Third State. Nothing more, nothing less. The UK did not hold any cards, unlike the Con that was perpetrated by the very people who brought you the Brexit Con.

Recently I was shot down by the pro-EU zealots for pointing out that the UK could actually force the hand of the EU and sue for better trading deals due the unstable nature of the German economy and especially their flagship car industry and low and behold what has been happening? It's in deep whotsit!

The EU is slowly coming apart at the seams and irrespective of what the EU trolls keep regurgitating, the UK is ultimately better off long term out of the EU than as a member. Why would you tie your colours to the mast of a sinking ship?

Again, I don't know where you are getting this Con from, but the UK certainly still has no cards with which to negotiate with the EU on any market segment. The UK is a Third Country now.



PS - here is an example study that illustrates in detail the negative impact to the US Economy from any mass deportations of undocumented migrants. All of this negative impact would, of course, be passed on solely to the Common US Citizen, making their cost of living worse, not better.

Significant damage to US Economy
 
Because in an unregulated free market wealth and power inevitably accumulate in fewer and fewer hands and economies collapse.
This is why we already have a large socialist element on our economy and the way it runs.
There is no alternative.
It can also be argued that a free market allows the distribution of wealth as growth enhances the wealth of all in the chain with higher incomes. Too much deregulation can have a negative effect but so can the stifling policies of the socialist.
Where is the socialist element in our economy? It is mainly deregulated now due to successive governments unless you mean the free handouts to those not working that you seem to think should be rewarded?
There are always alternatives. Some are better than others and some are worse, far worse. It generally needs to be somewhere in the middle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top