So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[Tarne]

It doesn't really matter. Older people are more likely to have less qualifications as the degree boom only happened in the labour years. Someone with no qualifications has the same vote as John Two Doctorates Doe. The main thing I can see, and this affects all elections, is that young people don't vote and complain the loudest when things don't go their way.

[woolley]

And of course it depends entirely what was put into their brains while they were being educated. For example, many university educated people see the establishment brochure version of the EU and don't think outside the box. All of that guff about it keeping the peace in Europe for 60 years and so on, but they cannot comprehend what is currently happening to it. In other words, they are more likely to accept the conventional wisdom. It's the same with globalisation.

 

Of course you can make statistics say a lot of things. I know many remain voters whose thinking is, to be kind, on a very superficial level. Lots of them on both sides of course.

Edited February 6, 2017 by woolley

[woody2]

just more guesswork, no facts

[Tarne]

Weak willed people often find the chaos of transition more difficult to accept than the world they had known before. They joyfully welcome back authority, even oppressive tyrannical authority, for it can be less painful for them than uncertainty.

[TheTeapot]

You were in favour of Brexit weren't you woody? Along with poorly educated people. That's a massive surprise.

[woolley]

You were in favour of Brexit weren't you woody? Along with poorly educated people. That's a massive surprise.

This is such a bankrupt argument. There were highly intelligent people and idiots on both sides.

[pongo]

the establishment brochure

Are you anti-establishment? For me, establishment, strong institutions and the evolving traditions of state are something to value.

 

Weak willed people often find the chaos of transition more difficult to accept than the world they had known before.

You could apply this to those who oppose restriction-free trade and open borders. Who want to return to a world of protected markets.

[woolley]

 

. Who want to return to a world of protected markets.

 

I think you'd find a lot of people are coming around to it having tasted the delights of globalisation.

[pongo]

 

 

. Who want to return to a world of protected markets.

 

I think you'd find a lot of people are coming around to it having tasted the delights of globalisation.

 

 

Often those opposing open trade are really just wanting to protect their own markets. Often markets which they themselves have previously controlled.

 

Greater globalisation and localisation are not mutually exclusive. A good local product is typically going to be about added value, for example. Look at bread on the IOM. The bread factory bread is competing with UK imports. But then along comes something like the Noa bakehouse. Showing that a local product can compete in other ways.

[woody2]

You were in favour of Brexit weren't you woody? Along with poorly educated people. That's a massive surprise.

 

unless they interviewed every voter they dont have a clue, just like you

[woolley]

There was an interesting piece in the "i" last week citing surveys in major countries and only two had a majority opining that life had improved for them since the onset of globalisation. One was definitely China and I believe the other was The Phillipines. Everywhere else, by a large margin, went the other way.

 

If large swathes of the population feel negatively about a policy you have to question who is driving it and to what end. In the case of globalisation, it is the gods of global capitalism for the greater concentration of wealth to themselves. Again, the propogandised narrative is that the whole world benefits and that has been successfully seductive of left wing, liberal forces internationally. The experience is that whilst some of the poorest may have gained a little, many of the poor and middle orders have been impoverished by the race to the bottom in cost cutting, and the benefits have flowed largely to the elite.

 

The conventional wisdom, as with that of the EU does not stand scrutiny.

[pongo]

There was an interesting piece in the "i" last week citing surveys in major countries and only two had a majority opining that life had improved for them since the onset of globalisation

Over what time period? For the majority of people in Europe and America, for example, life is very much better than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Irrespective of how they might answer some survey. The answer they give may reflect what they feel but it may not be accurate.

 

Ask a narrow age-group of people brought up on post WW2 trade and capital restrictions and unsustainable certainties and many will inevitably feel that they have been left behind. But those certainties were unrealistic. And you might equally ask them whether life is less rosey since fewer people regularly attended church. The answer may be meaningless.

 

Free-er markets and globalisation is a natural evolution. Today our customers are online - the whole planet is a potential market. If you impose arbitrary restrictions then people will inevitably, and quite properly, find ways around them. We shouldn't be arbitrarily restricted by geography - especially if we are selling services.

 

The IOM bread example shows that localisation and globalisation can co-exist sensibly. The Noa product is not competing with factory bread - except where people realise that they no longer want factory bread. Factory bread has its place but the consumer is not served well by a protected market.

Edited February 6, 2017 by pongo

[woolley]

The "consumer" is not served well by totally unbridled free trade if it ultimately denies him the means to consume.

[pongo]

The "consumer" is not served well by totally unbridled free trade if it ultimately denies him the means to consume.

 

For many people - our ability to choose to buy local produce will depend on our ability to sell services anywhere in the world without artificial restrictions.

 

I have been thinking for a while that money earned from off-island and / or non UK customers should be taxed at a lower rate. ie there should be a reward for bringing money into the economy.

Edited February 6, 2017 by pongo

[woolley]

That is an interesting idea and would be for the UK post Brexit as it would ameliorate the effects of any tarriffs. However, it is in itself a form of tariff is it not? Even if only in the negative sense. It would draw retaliatory action.