Soldato
What don't you understand about free trade costing money?
There will be a membership fee to join the EEA.
Based on what?
If you have in mind the usual source of that claim, that being Dustmann and Frattini's UCL paper, I'd suggest you go take a long, hard look at exactly what the paper says and in particular, the methodology used. It is not based on an accounting type exercise, like a P&L based on complete and accurate data, but on incomplete data, and based on a whole series of assumptions on what costs to include, how to assess, approximate or allocate costs, and for that matter, revenues.
It is an interesting academic exercise but it needs to be seen as exactly that - can academic paper, full of assumptions and artificial treatments. What it is not is an accurate accounting of either revenues or expenditures. If you change those assumptions, the justification for which is very brief where it exists at all, the can come to completely different results.
Moreover, it's worth looking at what the House of Lords said about immigration impact analyses -That same criticism applies to the UCL paper, and indeed, the paper itself spends a fair bit of time in it's 50-ish pages pointing out the shortcomings, the limited data available, the assumptions made in allocations and so on.
And even if it were 100% accurate and 100% complete, it is still only looking at fiscal impacts and takes no account whatever of either overall impact on the economy or on the social impact. Thus, it ignores other reports suggesting, for example, that immigration impacts on the wages, and employment levels, of the poorest paid.
Let me put that another way. Even if the claim is true, and that overall the fiscal impact is beneficial, it would be prudent to look at the allication of the benefit. For instance, if big businesses, and their owners, benefit hugely from reduced labour costs, but the low-paid suffer from reduced employment levels and suppressed wages then overall there's a net benefit, but at considerable social impact on the poor while the rich get richer.
But hey, immigration must be good because an over-simplified one-line summary says "net benefit", right?
The House of Lords report concluded Yet, it's astonishing how often a one-line tabloid misinterpretation of Dustmann and Frattini is used to do exactly that.
Be very careful how you use simplified summaries from academic papers to justify real-world decisions because, far too often, those academic papers have assumed and allocated the reality out of the subject in order to make it workable at all. The picture from migration reports is nowhere near as clear as simplistic newspaper reporting would have us believe. Don't believe me either? You don't need to. Go read the actual reports, in full, and pay particular attention to the vast array of caveats they contain.
Well it's not free if we have to pay someone. That's both free as in money, and free as in freedom.
Am I the only one reading Alday's quality posts. Come on remainers you disappoint me. You'd normally rip something like this to sheds to try to show you are in some way better than the poster.
Of all the arguements you could have used you pick possibly the worst example you can find.
Chinese goods face import duties yet can still compete with western made goods, why is that? Could it be that China doesn't have the same living or working standards as Europe, could it be that the wages are far lower in China which allows them to produce goods so cheap that despite import duties they are still cheaper?
So on that basis and taking economics in it's most simple form (that is to make a profit you either sell more or reduce overheads) you would like UK workers to have the same pay and conditions as their Chinese counterparts to negate the lack of free trade?
Am I the only one reading Alday's quality posts. Come on remainers you disappoint me. You'd normally rip something like this to sheds to try to show you are in some way better than the poster.
Considered posts deserve considered responses. Considered responses take time.
This I like.
Am I the only one reading Alday's quality posts. Come on remainers you disappoint me. You'd normally rip something like this to sheds to try to show you are in some way better than the poster.
Based on what?
If you have in mind the usual source of that claim, that being Dustmann and Frattini's UCL paper, I'd suggest you go take a long, hard look at exactly what the paper says and in particular, the methodology used. It is not based on an accounting type exercise, like a P&L based on complete and accurate data, but on incomplete data, and based on a whole series of assumptions on what costs to include, how to assess, approximate or allocate costs, and for that matter, revenues.
It is an interesting academic exercise but it needs to be seen as exactly that - can academic paper, full of assumptions and artificial treatments. What it is not is an accurate accounting of either revenues or expenditures. If you change those assumptions, the justification for which is very brief where it exists at all, the can come to completely different results.
Moreover, it's worth looking at what the House of Lords said about immigration impact analyses -That same criticism applies to the UCL paper, and indeed, the paper itself spends a fair bit of time in it's 50-ish pages pointing out the shortcomings, the limited data available, the assumptions made in allocations and so on.
And even if it were 100% accurate and 100% complete, it is still only looking at fiscal impacts and takes no account whatever of either overall impact on the economy or on the social impact. Thus, it ignores other reports suggesting, for example, that immigration impacts on the wages, and employment levels, of the poorest paid.
Let me put that another way. Even if the claim is true, and that overall the fiscal impact is beneficial, it would be prudent to look at the allication of the benefit. For instance, if big businesses, and their owners, benefit hugely from reduced labour costs, but the low-paid suffer from reduced employment levels and suppressed wages then overall there's a net benefit, but at considerable social impact on the poor while the rich get richer.
Based on what?
...
The picture from migration reports is nowhere near as clear as simplistic newspaper reporting would have us believe. Don't believe me either? You don't need to. Go read the actual reports, in full, and pay particular attention to the vast array of caveats they contain.
On Tuesday four big tech giants, Microsoft, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook announced that they had agreed on a code of conduct with the European Commission to take down "hate speech" within 24 hours of it being posted on social media. And social media has reacted. Strongly.
The aim of the guidelines, said the press statement, was to remove content that is "genuine and serious incitement to violence and hatred". Vĕra Jourová, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, who spearheaded the creation of the code, also specifically name-checked the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels.
...
However where some see sensible new safeguards others see the stifling of free speech and debate. And #IStandWithHateSpeech - which is not an entirely new hashtag - has been trending in the United States - which will not be covered by the new EU initiative - and other countries which will be. It's been tweeted more than 80,000 times in the last couple of days
The picture is quite clear the only problem is they contradict you preconceived ideas.
Firstly, assuming that these academic papers have incorrect conclusions, where are the academic papers with the correct conclusions? Is the research that supports your ideas supressed?
Secondly, even if we assume your criticism is valid, use other variables and conclude EU migrants have a zero or even negative effect, you ignore the huge negative fiscal impact natives have. No matter what variables you use and what numbers you twist, the natives always have a much larger negative impact compared to migrants. It's obvious why that is: migrants don't require taxpayer money to mature, receive education etc. Futhermore, they are on average better educated than natives.
EU migrants are simply more cost effective, there is no denying this. The concerns re migrants have no grounds in terms of economics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36427153
Interesting article on this week's announcement that the European Commission had teamed up with Big Tech to curbfreehate speech online and the inevitable backlash.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36429325
EU commission warning Poland about their constitutional changes. While I disagree with Poland's current direction I'm not happy with the EU commission putting its oar in. At the end of the day the current Polish government are the democratically elected representatives of the Polish people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36429325
EU commission warning Poland about their constitutional changes. While I disagree with Poland's current direction I'm not happy with the EU commission putting its oar in. At the end of the day the current Polish government are the democratically elected representatives of the Polish people.
So what if they are elected? If they go into full nutter phase(that's the current direction) they lose their voting rights and everyone willingly signed up to this rule.
Freedom if speech is gone now.