Off Topic

Brexit: UK votes to leave the EU

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 12th, 2017 8:35 am
Tags:
None
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6091 posts
435 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
2409 posts
78 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
6091 posts
435 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
6555 posts
182 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
2409 posts
78 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
6091 posts
435 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
3305 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
6091 posts
435 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
3305 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
6091 posts
435 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
6091 posts
435 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
5314 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.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2012
2409 posts
78 upvotes
Toronto
Jimbobs wrote:
Mar 29th, 2017 11:51 am
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
There is a reason why thr EU is so bitter about Brexit....because its the 2nd biggest EU economy gone. So ya..dont let the door hit.

What does 1973 have to do with this? In 1973 the EU was not passing laws that the UK had to follow...they were not dictating the size of British toilet bowls.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 1, 2006
6091 posts
435 upvotes
Toronto
hugh_da_man wrote:
Mar 29th, 2017 2:48 pm
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.
One potentially serious problem the Brits have is they have few, if any, civil servants capable of negotiating international trade agreements. After all, they haven't had to do so for almost a generation.
hugh_da_man wrote:
Mar 29th, 2017 2:48 pm
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.
IMHO, the EU is not, and never has been, in jeopardy. The Euro, however, is a very different story!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4415 posts
313 upvotes
silky28 wrote:
Mar 29th, 2017 4:50 pm
There is a reason why thr EU is so bitter about Brexit....because its the 2nd biggest EU economy gone. So ya..dont let the door hit.

What does 1973 have to do with this? In 1973 the EU was not passing laws that the UK had to follow...they were not dictating the size of British toilet bowls.
I guess by the same logic, every province should leave Canada for passing laws that they had to follow. And then each city should leave their province for passing laws that they had to follow. Then each neighborhood from the city. Then each family from the neighborhood. Then each child from their parents. :)

Top