tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post6407826550213031071..comments2024-03-28T13:48:13.606+00:00Comments on Ambush Predator: Let’s Make Third World People Poorer!JuliaMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-67274344475612046872009-05-23T01:52:52.391+01:002009-05-23T01:52:52.391+01:00Why is Sri lanka the centre of such aggresive inte...Why is Sri lanka the centre of such aggresive interest?<br />do they have oil? Are they a strategic off shore island a la the UK?malpashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03465468581504191466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-13294881390153898642009-05-22T23:03:31.233+01:002009-05-22T23:03:31.233+01:00"No - in real terms we gain. We've got the goods a..."No - in real terms we gain. We've got the goods and services we want and those supplying us have bits of paper with Gordo's "promise to pay" on them."<br /><br />And what is that Umbongo? Would it be "debt" by any chance? What got us into this econmic mess in the first place? What do you think would happen if the US defaulted on those debts? Or the UK? Have you any idea of what that would mean for us?<br /><br />Besides which - that is the national debt, not the trade deficit. Not the same thing. National (or government) debt is money borrowed by the government to fund its spending programmes.<br /><br />If we default on those we will not be able to get credit anywhere. What do you think that would mean for public services and taxes? How high do you think inflation would rise?<br /><br />The trade deficit is the difference between what we sell to the rest of the world and what we import as consumers. It's real money - OUR money - which leaves this country for good. Or until we find someway to encourage it back in - which means reducing the trade deficit.<br /><br />It's the elephant in the room of economics today - the one thing nobody talks about anymore even though it is massive and staring us in the face. Do you honestly believe that if your wages go up 2% but your costs rise 5% that you are better off? What will happen is that you'll eventually find yourself having to stick more and more of those costs onto credit cards or take out loans to cover expenses (i.e. increase your debt) - which is exactly what we have been doing for the last 15 years.<br /><br />It can't go on forever.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-74374120259686300332009-05-22T15:26:54.176+01:002009-05-22T15:26:54.176+01:00Stan
"In real terms that means the wealth of the ...Stan<br /><br />"In real terms that means the wealth of the nation has been in decline. It's like getting a 2% rise when inflation is running at 4-5%."<br /><br />No - in <I>real</I> terms we gain. We've got the goods and services we want and those supplying us have bits of paper with Gordo's "promise to pay" on them. The purpose of exporting is not to put other people's currency or gold in the bank, it's so we can import the goods and services we want.<br /><br />China is sitting on, what, $1.5 trillion. Big deal - they have bits of paper: the Americans have Chinese products. If China tried to cash in their dollar holdings, the dollar would collapse so they're stuffed. Who are the mugs then? China or the US?Umbongonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-62096007492686319272009-05-22T12:30:36.034+01:002009-05-22T12:30:36.034+01:00"Protectionism costs the consumer more, every sing..."Protectionism costs the consumer more, every single one of us bears the direct and knock-on costs of that 10% tax."<br /><br />A very simplistic view of protectionism. Protectionism isn't simply about "banning imports" or tariffs - it's about having control over who you trade with and how. The crucial issue is the balance of trade.<br /><br />For more than a decade the trade deficit has been running at 4-5% of GDP while growth has been around 1-2%.<br /><br />In real terms that means the wealth of the nation has been in decline. It's like getting a 2% rise when inflation is running at 4-5%.<br /><br />We've papered over that with high property values (mostly driven by mass immigration increaing demand)and massive debt, but that is not sustainable.<br /><br />We have to get to a position where the balance of trade is either positive or within the limits of GDP growth - i.e. if growth is running at 2% the trade deficit needs to be less than that. Then, and only then will you have a robust economy.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-64103510988907276092009-05-22T11:40:32.965+01:002009-05-22T11:40:32.965+01:00"This is what I can never understand about those w...<I>"This is what I can never understand about those who advocate protectionism. Protectionism costs the consumer more, every single one of us bears the direct and knock-on costs of that 10% tax."</I> <br /><br />That's because it's mostly about political posturing or social engineering by the back door. <br /><br />Nothing to do with economic reality! <br /><br /><I>"My head hurts"</I> <br /><br />Yeah, I know that feeling!<br /><br /><I>"In 2006 they implemented a similar idea to the Brigss plan and three years later it's all over."</I> <br /><br />Exactly. It's almost as though he wants to punish the Sri Lankan government for pointing this out to everyone in clear and unequivocal terms, isn't it..?JuliaMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-21504490952176040732009-05-22T10:48:20.301+01:002009-05-22T10:48:20.301+01:00I read that Jeremy Page article - it was terribly ...I read that Jeremy Page article - it was terribly biased towards the Tamil Tigers. I don't know much about Sri Lanka or the conflict, but I know enough to recognise that the tactics employed are basically those of the Briggs plan as used by the British to great effect in Malaya.<br /><br />The basic idea is to deprive the insurgents of basic resources including manpower.<br /><br />The Briggs plan remains a very sound blueprint on how to defeat insurgency. The US failed to take heed of it in Vietnam and we're still ignoring it today in Afghanistan and Iraq.<br /><br />Sri Lanka fought the war against the LTTE using conventional counter terrorism tactics for 20 odd years with little impact. In 2006 they implemented a similar idea to the Brigss plan and three years later it's all over.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15007863347348182876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-58388588934177153902009-05-22T10:33:15.149+01:002009-05-22T10:33:15.149+01:00Look to the positive.
For years we have been led ...Look to the positive.<br /><br />For years we have been led to believe that poverty is a major cause of war and conflict. Now that this war is over we are going to make them poorer as a penalty.<br /><br />I presume that they now believe that wealth is a major cause of war.<br /><br />Either that or they want to make them poor so that the fighting will resume.<br /><br />My head hurtsTDKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-49892986869200503822009-05-22T09:22:26.749+01:002009-05-22T09:22:26.749+01:00It is PRINCIPAL that I only buy German, were possi...It is PRINCIPAL that I only buy German, were possible. And bugger all to do with price, or creating jobs.<br /><br />You forgot THAT one Obnoxio.<br /><br />Von Brandenburg-PreußenVon Spreuthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-627081175329856970.post-71919156026839848442009-05-22T09:03:59.604+01:002009-05-22T09:03:59.604+01:00Actually, reinstating the 10% tax will not only ma...Actually, reinstating the 10% tax will not only make the Sri Lankans poorer, it will make <I>us</I> poorer as well. We will wind up paying more for those same clothes.<br /><br />This is what I can never understand about those who advocate protectionism. Protectionism costs the consumer more, every single one of us bears the direct and knock-on costs of that 10% tax. It might help our manufacturers make more money, but there are many more consumers than manufacturers (even if you include the handful of extra people who <I>might</I> get employed because of protectionist policies.) But that chances are that extra people won't get employed, because most places can ramp production up on the same number of employees. So the only people who REALLY benefit are the shareholders of the manufacturer.<br /><br />And the aggregate is that more people in the UK (and in their trading partners) suffer because of protectionism than are helped by it.Obnoxio The Clownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012089552153702526noreply@blogger.com