"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap….
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
….but isn’t half our trade with the European Union?
This claim needs to be put into perspective: 80% of the UK economy is economic activity within the UK. This is UK citizens and UK businesses buying UK goods and services. Of the 20% of the UK economy that depends on international trade, around half (i.e. 10% of the total) is trade with the EU. Of that 10%, a sizeable number is services and investment income, which aren’t subject to tariffs.
Regarding ‘trade in goods’, EU trade figures are artificially boosted by the ‘Rotterdam and Antwerp effect’ – this is where UK exports to non-EU countries are sent via transhipment centres such as Rotterdam and Antwerp. Sadly this ‘trade in goods’ is counted as ‘EU exports’ even though their ultimate destination is outside the EU. It is distortions like the Rotterdam and Antwerp effect that make it difficult to gauge the exact degree the EU affects our economy.
Therefore, roughly 5-8% of the British economy is ‘trade in goods’ with the EU. More conservative estimates have suggested 10%. There is no reason why this trade shouldn’t continue, however, as we are the EU’s biggest customer. It will continue to sell to us and we will continue to sell to it. Outside the EU, however, our economy will be free from compulsory EU rules and regulations that are holding EU economies back.
When we leave the EU, Britain won’t be alone. Great Britain is a global nation with extensive, historic trading links across the world. Outside the European Union we will reclaim our seat at the World Trade Organisation, a seat we vacate because the EU currently speaks for us during WTO trade talks. From that position we will be able to negotiate our own trade deals with emerging, successful economies and generate new jobs in the UK.
To reiterate, trade with the EU will continue. Article 3 of the EU Lisbon Treaty says that “in its relations with the wider world, the Union shall contribute to free and fair trade”. Article 8 says “the Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness”. Incidentally, the EU sells more to us than we do to it. We want a friendly relationship to continue, but we object to EU rules holding back the 90% of the British economy that has nothing to do with it.
Thanks to Get Britain Out
Life Without Stimulus
Republicans constantly remind us that the Obama stimulus—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—did not work. They voted against it. In the United Kingdom the government is led by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron. His government did not adopt stimulus. Instead it boldly enacted an economic program that cut spending and raised taxes. The chart below shows the results and compares it to the U.S. experience. After three and a half years, U.S. GDP is just about returning to the pre-recession peak. That’s awful. But it s far better than the U.K. where GDP is still five percent ($750 billion in US terms) below its pre-recession peak.
There are still
economists Keynesians out there who think GDP is an effective gauge of growth and prosperity.
Of course, regular economists know that it isn’t.
That is not to say that the Tories are anywhere near getting it right. This is what really needs to happen.
Meanwhile, useful idiots like Mr Sullivan will continue insisting we save the ship by drilling more holes in the hull, and borrowing from the very same bankers that everyone’s marching against to pay for the drill.
You couldn’t make it up.
I’m sure you’ve all seen this knee-slapping piece of false equivalency by now. SO FUNNY AND TRUE except nobody’s saying there shouldn’t be corporations or products. And the point of the protests is not that we shouldn’t have good hair dye or street signs, but rather that corporations should maybe pay their fair share and/or not move jobs overseas. Also it would be difficult to record these protests on a homemade cigar-box camera. And this picture seems to be a direct rebuttal of that other recent picture, which exposed some clear hypocrisy (citizens demanding zero taxation while being kept safe and sound by the benefits those taxes pay for), while all this one exposes is that people tend to wear clothes when they’re outside. And social networking is not “by corporations” by and large. OTHERWISE RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
Way to get libertarianism completely wrong, Dave.
Street signs aren’t paid for by taxes. Taxes pay the interest on money that is borrowed into existence by the (private) Federal Reserve, thereby inflating us into poverty and serfdom.
Hey, #Occupywallstreet, #UKuncut….
So you’re angry with banks and corporations? Nothing wrong with that.
Where did you buy the food you ate yesterday? How did you pay for it? Cash? Credit card?
Did you phone anyone? Send an email? Post on a blog?
Are you demanding that your government “does something” to rein in capitalism (which isn’t capitalism at all, by the way, but that’s another story)?
If the answer to that last question is “yes”, as I suspect in the vast majority of cases it is, then all you are doing as you march, bellow “revolution” through a megaphone or call for higher taxes, is sustaining the very corporate machinery that you want to bring down.
The best thing you can do to hurt global corporatism (which, I repeat, is not capitalism) is….absolutely nothing.
Instead of a day of action, have a day of inaction; a do nothing day.
Or better yet, walk or cycle to where you’re going, grow your own vegetables, keep a few chickens, buy your food direct from a local producer…. the corporations, who are laughing at you right now, will hate you for it.
Are you really serious about stopping the banks and corporations? Do you really want to be free?
You are being led by the nose by the unions and the activists, who are as much part of the unspoken quid pro quo between the banksters and statism as any Wall Street fatcat.
You’ve been misled. You’ve been took. Time to educate yourselves.
Good afternoon to you.
If presidential candidates were elected based on how well they rewarded their political donors, then Texas Governor Rick Perry would lead the pack. Since 2001, more than a fifth of the $83 million in campaign donations received by Perry have come from his past and present political appointees. In 2009, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washigton cited his administration’s rampant cronyism in naming him to its “Worst Governors” list. A recent analysis of Perry’s 150 largest political donors by the LA Times found that more than half of them received hefty business contracts, tax breaks, or appointments from the governor. Here are ten Perry supporters who’ve been handsomely repaid for their patronage:
Rick Perry’s 10 Worst Crony Capitalists
Commented on “Telegraph”
Added to which, do you think the BBC’s slavish toeing of the pro-EU line is pro or anti the corporations you claim to dislike so much?
Give me a TV news channel that at least gives a voice to campaigners for unregulated markets and personal liberty (something for which the BBC shows its contempt on an hourly basis) any day of the week.
And before you suggest that free markets promote the growth of over mighty corporations, have a look at this….