Off Topic

Brexit: UK votes to leave the EU

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 30th, 2017 1:19 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6063 posts
433 upvotes
Toronto
silky28 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 9:40 pm
The renewables industry is only worth anything because big governments have dumped tons of money into it. Sure, Canada and Ontario have pretty good green sectors...how much of that has come from private investment and how much from government just throwing money at it?
Lots of industries are only worth anything because governments put money into it. Private investors looking for profits will often hold back until they see the new industry up and running. I'm sure you understand the Keynesian inspired concept of stimulus spending.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "green sector" so can't address that.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2297 posts
76 upvotes
Toronto
blaznazn22 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 7:40 pm
more hearsay, and BS from right wingers. Robbing peter to pay paul...thats what corporations do on a daily basis, what exactly is the difference--its all a form of redistribution. Corporations just redistribute and skew more to the shareholders and executives while screwing the workers. Government redistributes back to the masses. You sound confused, probably just rehashing sound bites without knowing what your talking about. China will soon become the largest economy in the world--on track to overtaking the US in 5 years time. Their largest corporations are all STATE OWNED. Go through the list of their mammoth companies and they're all owned by the government.

Mike Harris sold the 407 which was built with taxpayer money to a spanish company for $3 billion dollars on a 100 year lease--no I did not make a mistake...he leased it for ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Either he was freaking corrupt, incompetent, or out of his mind. 407 made billions of $$ just last year. The original deal was for 30 years...disgusting but far more palatable. Was the idiot that desparate for money, to balance a debt? He could have just issued some bonds like a normal person.
God, more stupidity. Corporations do not redistribute wealth. They taken in money through voluntary engagement that they then share amongst the people who own the company. Corporations do not screw anyone for if you don't like their products or services you do not have to use them; if you don't like the working environment find another job. My wife often complains about her iPhone and iTunes and how you can only use Apple apps etc. etc. etc. I tell her every time that if she does not like Apple she can take her business elsewhere. She recently bought another IPhone.

As for the 407 sure, maybe it was not a great deal. But that quality of the deal is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the principle of selling off government assets. Mike Harris did not invent it, he inherited a dire financial situation that required tough decisions, and the Liberals are selling off assets to cover up the mistakes THEY made. So is your argument that no government asset should ever be sold or merely that only the Liberals should be allowed to sell of profitable asset?
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2297 posts
76 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 11:44 pm
Lots of industries are only worth anything because governments put money into it. Private investors looking for profits will often hold back until they see the new industry up and running. I'm sure you understand the Keynesian inspired concept of stimulus spending.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "green sector" so can't address that.
What does worth anything really mean though? what is the value of something that is totally funded by the government? If an industry produces less GDP than receives in government funding can it be said to be worth anything? You can say the green energy sector in the US is worth $200 billion but until there is $200 billion in private funding the term worth is useless.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6063 posts
433 upvotes
Toronto
silky28 wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2017 10:26 am
What does worth anything really mean though? what is the value of something that is totally funded by the government? If an industry produces less GDP than receives in government funding can it be said to be worth anything? You can say the green energy sector in the US is worth $200 billion but until there is $200 billion in private funding the term worth is useless.
You might think so but bankers wouldn't agree with you nor would private investors! They love government investment :)
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2297 posts
76 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 22nd, 2017 9:47 pm
You might think so but bankers wouldn't agree with you nor would private investors! They love government investment :)
What does that have to do with GDP and net returns?
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6063 posts
433 upvotes
Toronto
silky28 wrote:
Mar 23rd, 2017 5:05 pm
What does that have to do with GDP and net returns?
You wrote "You can say the green energy sector in the US is worth $200 billion but until there is $200 billion in private funding the term worth is useless" to which I replied "You might think so but bankers wouldn't agree with you nor would private investors! They love government investment ". My point was that if private investors see government invest in something, that makes it a more attractive investment for them.

Governments invest for many different reasons: sometimes to provide jobs; sometimes to stimulate a local economy; sometimes to kick start a particular industry. While some may look at these as other forms of social welfare, I disagree. Giving people jobs is better for any economy, and the people themselves, than simply mailing out cheques while they do nothing. Also, the hope is that the business supported or kick started will get going with government help and will pay back in time through corporate taxes, employee taxes, etc.
Last edited by Jimbobs on Mar 24th, 2017 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 8, 2013
6341 posts
167 upvotes
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 24th, 2017 12:46 am
You wrote "You can say the green energy sector in the US is worth $200 billion but until there is $200 billion in private funding the term worth is useless" to which I replied "You might think so but bankers wouldn't agree with you nor would private investors! They love government investment "
Ouch.

Face With Tears Of JoyFace With Tears Of JoyFace With Tears Of Joy
Diversity Is Our Strength 😎
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2297 posts
76 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 24th, 2017 12:46 am
You wrote "You can say the green energy sector in the US is worth $200 billion but until there is $200 billion in private funding the term worth is useless" to which I replied "You might think so but bankers wouldn't agree with you nor would private investors! They love government investment ". My point was that if private investors see government invest in something, that makes it a more attractive investment for them.

Governments invest for many different reasons: sometimes to provide jobs; sometimes to stimulate a local economy; sometimes to kick start a particular industry. While some may look at these as other forms of social welfare, I disagree. Giving people jobs is better for any economy, and the people themselves, than simply mailing out cheques while they do nothing. Also, the hope is that the business supported or kick started will get going with government help and will pay back in time through corporate taxes, employee taxes, etc.
Again, this is about GDP, not about bankers riding on the backs of government investment. The only reason the green sector is worth anything is because government invests in it by forcing the transition to renewables then passing that cost onto tax payers. Without government forcing this transition and forcing us to pay for it there would be no green sector. It is a bad investment...as proved by Ontario's green energy programs...and by the fact that large corporations have to be forced through taxation to become 'green'.

Tell me, what is Ontario's green energy sector worth and how much $$$ has the Ontario government pumped into it?
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6063 posts
433 upvotes
Toronto
silky28 wrote:
Mar 24th, 2017 8:41 am
Again, this is about GDP, not about bankers riding on the backs of government investment. .....
Actually, it's not. It's about Brexit and you are hijacking the thread.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
3302 posts
188 upvotes
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 24th, 2017 12:46 am
Governments invest for many different reasons: sometimes to provide jobs; sometimes to stimulate a local economy; sometimes to kick start a particular industry.
Governments, in a democracy, "invest" (i.e. spend your and my hard earned tax dollars) for one reason - to get re-elected.
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 24th, 2017 12:46 am
While some may look at these as other forms of social welfare, I disagree. Giving people jobs is better for any economy, and the people themselves, than simply mailing out cheques while they do nothing. Also, the hope is that the business supported or kick started will get going with government help and will pay back in time through corporate taxes, employee taxes, etc.
This would be true if the money government spends is wealth created out of thin air. Unfortunately, the money they obtain through taxation is taken out of all our pockets. For every dollar that the government spends to create jobs, this is one less dollar that businesses and private individuals have to do the same. So the real question you should ask yourself is: can governments make better decisions than the private sector on how to allocate capital to benefit the overall economy? As Silky28 has been trying to explain to you, governments have done a rather poor job in "investing" in the green economy.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6063 posts
433 upvotes
Toronto
CheapScotch wrote:
Mar 26th, 2017 5:13 pm
Governments, in a democracy, "invest" (i.e. spend your and my hard earned tax dollars) for one reason - to get re-elected.



This would be true if the money government spends is wealth created out of thin air. Unfortunately, the money they obtain through taxation is taken out of all our pockets. For every dollar that the government spends to create jobs, this is one less dollar that businesses and private individuals have to do the same. So the real question you should ask yourself is: can governments make better decisions than the private sector on how to allocate capital to benefit the overall economy? As Silky28 has been trying to explain to you, governments have done a rather poor job in "investing" in the green economy.
Silky28 has only exposed his rather biased view of economics - as you have repeatedly done in the past. But, as I said, this thread is about Brexit so why not try to stay on topic.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
3302 posts
188 upvotes
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 26th, 2017 8:56 pm
Silky28 has only exposed his rather biased view of economics - as you have repeatedly done in the past.
You have your own bias - which is OK, as long as you are willing to make a reasonable argument to defend your position rather than resort to personal attacks.
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 26th, 2017 8:56 pm
But, as I said, this thread is about Brexit so why not try to stay on topic.
You are the one who brought up Keynesian economics in the first place.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6063 posts
433 upvotes
Toronto
Brexit: Peers criticise government for poor response to concerns over Theresa May's approach to EU departure

Two Lords committees have attacked the poor quality of the Government’s response to their report raising concerns over Theresa May’s approach to Brexit, saying it lacked “rigour and analysis”.

The cross-party group of peers said the official ministerial response to their report, which pointed to gaps in the Government’s approach to Article 50 talks and post-Brexit trade, was undetailed and repetitive.

It comes amid warnings that Ms May is stirring resentment at the way she is treating parliamentary procedure and following claims that Whitehall is unprepared for the Brexit process.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6063 posts
433 upvotes
Toronto
And the lunacy continues: 'No turning back' on Brexit as Article 50 triggered

She said Britain would now make its own decisions and its own laws and "take control of the things that matter most to us - we are going to take this opportunity to build a stronger, fairer Britain, a country that our children and grandchildren are proud to call home".

What have they been doing since 1973, I wonder? Edward Heath, the then Conservative Prime Minister, must be spinning in his grave.

Anyway, don't let the door hit you on your way out Smiling Face With Open Mouth
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5174 posts
212 upvotes
It's fascinating and it will be very interesting to see what happens. I think they're lucky for a few things going on in the world right now like Donald Trump. Bilateral "fair" trade deals might be easier to come by in the current world climate and that is a definite advantage for post-Brexit Britain.

I wonder if the EU will survive in the end? There are a lot of other problems that they're not addressing and populism is on the rise everywhere.
× < >
Rotate image Save Cancel

Top