Jeremy Corbyn.

[Xtractorfan]

Because other countries are doing all right as they are, and they will have to stiff someone else to do deals with us. How have they been managing up until now, have they been doing without, and waiting for us to leave the EU so they can trade with us.
We probably already trade with those other countries, and may be able to increase that trade, but at a price. (btw that is a different maybe)
It is not going to be easy. And we will need a new PM to be able to do those deals.
They don't want badass people who are gonna run through their wheat fields.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Because other countries are doing all right as they are, and they will have to stiff someone else to do deals with us. How have they been managing up until now, have they been doing without, and waiting for us to leave the EU so they can trade with us.
We probably already trade with those other countries, and may be able to increase that trade, but at a price. (btw that is a different maybe)
It is not going to be easy. And we will need a new PM to be able to do those deals.
They don't want badass people who are gonna run through their wheat fields.

Your understanding of foreign trade underwhelms me. Since when are multi way trade agreements a zero sum affair?

Oh that's right. Usually never.

 

[davemercedes]

Just give me a clue as to why you think other countries don't want to do deals with us ?
Its beyond baffling.

You're putting words into my mouth.
- I never once said "other countries don't want to..."

What I did was poke fun at another load of drivel from Bumbling Boris. On the same day as POTUS Obama said we would be "at the back of the queue for trade deals with USA" - he came out with "Other countries are queuing up to do deals with us". No names, no products or commodities - for a government minister that's baffling!

There are probably a few countries ready to do business to replace what we stand to lose - especially if Mayhem still goes for the hard brexit solution (but most likely at a price that is advantageous for them and not us especially if they can get "distress" deals.

But this alleged queue - who's in it? Or are the names another big secret like Mrs Mayhem's "plan"?

Columbia made noises saying they want to do business with UK - their President is desperate to have "respectable" trade to replace the drugs that he is trying to kill off which is promising, but how many 'Columbias' will we need to replace what we lose from the EU?

 

[davemercedes]

Very possibly not. I don't see advantage of another election in the short term though, that would only give the eu more advantage, especially if Corbyn did win No10 that time.

In a very strange way I think Corbyn just might come away with a better deal - but it's unlikely he will have that opportunity - although I think we will have another election before the year is out. No Tory MP wants to be PM at present - it's too much of a poisoned chalice. And I don't think anybody has the skills required to undo the damage done by the arrogant and negative attitude of Mrs Mayhem whose judgement (and advisers) was so poor that by being "strong like a stable" (well, it smelled like a stable), turned a clear lead and given mandate into a "coalition of chaos". Another result is that the DUP can now claim that they are imposing direct rule on Westminster! Great, terrific. Well done.

So does everybody still think she was/is the right person with the right judgment to lead our Brexit team?
- It's okay if you change your mind, she did - loads of times!

 

[Frosty149]

In a very strange way I think Corbyn just might come away with a better deal - but it's unlikely he will have that opportunity - although I think we will have another election before the year is out. No Tory MP wants to be PM at present - it's too much of a poisoned chalice. And I don't think anybody has the skills required to undo the damage done by the arrogant and negative attitude of Mrs Mayhem whose judgement (and advisers) was so poor that by being "strong like a stable" (well, it smelled like a stable), turned a clear lead and given mandate into a "coalition of chaos". Another result is that the DUP can now claim that they are imposing direct rule on Westminster! Great, terrific. Well done.

So does everybody still think she was/is the right person with the right judgment to lead our Brexit team?
- It's okay if you change your mind, she did - loads of times!

Interesting question you pose...
In the absence of a perceived strong and respected figurehead, my only suggestion might be Fallon - he's got the experience and though a little deadpan, possibly the respect of his own party, also he doesn't seem to flap and bluster?

 

[davemercedes]

Interesting question you pose...
In the absence of a perceived strong and respected figurehead, my only suggestion might be Fallon - he's got the experience and though a little deadpan, possibly the respect of his own party, also he doesn't seem to flap and bluster?

You could be right... but assuming she had gone, I don't see any new PM or other senior Tory asking a non-Tory to do it.
- What a mess!

I think Mrs Mayhem should quickly catch a "diplomatic" cold - one that's "serious" enough to provide an immediate excuse for delaying the EU negotiations while something is sorted.

As it stands, I'm very unhappy about being beholden to the DUP (probably thought up by one of the same tw**s who advised her to hold the election in the first place) - because we don't know what they will demand. They can already claim to have put direct rule into Westminster...

Reading the gossip column it seems Mrs Mayhem's advisers were a forbidden inner circle that had no respect for cabinet ministers etc so maybe it really is time for a huge clear out... a sort of "great repeal of advisers act"

 

[davemercedes]

btw: Nick Clegg is looking for a job.
- He's good at making pledges he can break later...

 

[Frosty149]

You could be right... but assuming she had gone, I don't see any new PM or other senior Tory asking a non-Tory to do it.
- What a mess!

I think Mrs Mayhem should quickly catch a "diplomatic" cold - one that's "serious" enough to provide an immediate excuse for delaying the EU negotiations while something is sorted.

As it stands, I'm very unhappy about being beholden to the DUP (probably thought up by one of the same tw**s who advised her to hold the election in the first place) - because we don't know what they will demand. They can already claim to have put direct rule into Westminster...

Reading the gossip column it seems Mrs Mayhem's advisers were a forbidden inner circle that had no respect for cabinet ministers etc so maybe it really is time for a huge clear out... a sort of "great repeal of advisers act"

The advisors (Timothy and Hill) officially quit today...

 

[Frosty149]

As I've said elsewhere Fallon may be the right man for the Brexit negotiations, in the absence of any other 'respected' conservatives, but I could be miles wide of the mark....

 

[Xtractorfan]

Your understanding of foreign trade underwhelms me. Since when are multi way trade agreements a zero sum affair?

Oh that's right. Usually never.

Your reading is good, but your understanding is like, lets say Tory, or Mayhen like, you read into it things which aren't there. You must try harder, Theresa.

 

[Frontstep]

You're putting words into my mouth.
- I never once said "other countries don't want to..."

What I did was poke fun at another load of drivel from Bumbling Boris. On the same day as POTUS Obama said we would be "at the back of the queue for trade deals with USA" - he came out with "Other countries are queuing up to do deals with us". No names, no products or commodities - for a government minister that's baffling!

There are probably a few countries ready to do business to replace what we stand to lose - especially if Mayhem still goes for the hard brexit solution (but most likely at a price that is advantageous for them and not us especially if they can get "distress" deals.

But this alleged queue - who's in it? Or are the names another big secret like Mrs Mayhem's "plan"?

Columbia made noises saying they want to do business with UK - their President is desperate to have "respectable" trade to replace the drugs that he is trying to kill off which is promising, but how many 'Columbias' will we need to replace what we lose from the EU?

You're putting words into my mouth.
- I never once said "other countries don't want to..."

What I did was poke fun at another load of drivel from Bumbling Boris. On the same day as POTUS Obama said we would be "at the back of the queue for trade deals with USA" - he came out with "Other countries are queuing up to do deals with us". No names, no products or commodities - for a government minister that's baffling!

There are probably a few countries ready to do business to replace what we stand to lose - especially if Mayhem still goes for the hard brexit solution (but most likely at a price that is advantageous for them and not us especially if they can get "distress" deals.

But this alleged queue - who's in it? Or are the names another big secret like Mrs Mayhem's "plan"?

Columbia made noises saying they want to do business with UK - their President is desperate to have "respectable" trade to replace the drugs that he is trying to kill off which is promising, but how many 'Columbias' will we need to replace what we lose from the EU?

I am still utterly confused by your constant suggestion that countries are not queuing up to do trade with us of course they are its what they do, what do you think Ambassadors do all day hand out the Ferrero Rochers ?

Countries that hate us trade with us and vice versa.

Why does any EU country want to stop selling us goods or services .

 

[Craiglxviii]

Your reading is good, but your understanding is like, lets say Tory, or Mayhen like, you read into it things which aren't there. You must try harder, Theresa.

It's really amusing, Wales. Ok. I won't go with all little words like I did your other login.

So, Country A trades with Country B. Country C comes along and asks, "I have products and services to sell. I'm keen. "

Does that mean that either A or B will lose out should either decide to trade with C? That's what you described. It is known as a zero- sum game and it does not generally, or typically appear in international trade. It does in politics, but not trade. To elaborate:

What actually happens is, both A & B look through their various RFQ files and find something they want that C is selling, however many tiers down the list- maybe C is big into cyber security vetting. Or casting high performance engine blocks. Or quality kitchen furniture. Or large scale production equipment. Or has significant depth of talent in process engineering. Or excess export warship building capacity. (All of those are real specific examples of various countries' industries by the way...).

Then A & B look at the trade they do with each other, and identify areas in which C produces and where either there is a supply shortfall, or where the cost of supply is too high for both their liking. C then moves in to cover those gaps. Then, typically, C identifies areas of high added value that A & B have missed out on, and creates deals to supply into them as well.

This is pretty much how international trade has worked for the last, oh, five centuries or more. Everyone benefits. If trade was zero- sum then other countries would have to get poorer for others to get richer. We don't really see that happen.

Now, an economy can increase by increasing domestic supply alone. Germany, Japan and America all did this between 1945 and 1970. All three had previously gone the other way and attempted to increase their economy by empire building or resource grabbing, that's what the invasion of Czechoslovakia was all about- add more production capacity and capital to the Third Reich or go bust within six weeks (with debts owed almost in toto to banks in London and New York by the way). Same with the Greater South East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere- rubber and oil feedstocks were massively in demand with little industrial product to pay for them. The Americans went into the Phillipines and Panama to control (charge for) the flow of trade. Now, all of those countries realised that their economies didn't need someone else to lose out in order for them to prosper. They all changed gear after the war to focus on satisfying (and growing) domestic demand in the realisation that trade did not have to be zero sum.

Most usually any trade deal has multiple nett beneficiaries, otherwise it isn't entered into... there are always exceptions of course, but this is trade at entire nation- state level we're talking. Very broad brush.

So. What's your understanding of how three- way or more international trade deals are zero sum? Please do elaborate.

 

[Frosty149]

It's really amusing, Wales. Ok. I won't go with all little words like I did your other login.

So, Country A trades with Country B. Country C comes along and asks, "I have products and services to sell. I'm keen. "

Does that mean that either A or B will lose out should either decide to trade with C? That's what you described. It is known as a zero- sum game and it does not generally, or typically appear in international trade. It does in politics, but not trade. To elaborate:

What actually happens is, both A & B look through their various RFQ files and find something they want that C is selling, however many tiers down the list- maybe C is big into cyber security vetting. Or casting high performance engine blocks. Or quality kitchen furniture. Or large scale production equipment. Or has significant depth of talent in process engineering. Or excess export warship building capacity. (All of those are real specific examples of various countries' industries by the way...).

Then A & B look at the trade they do with each other, and identify areas in which C produces and where either there is a supply shortfall, or where the cost of supply is too high for both their liking. C then moves in to cover those gaps. Then, typically, C identifies areas of high added value that A & B have missed out on, and creates deals to supply into them as well.

This is pretty much how international trade has worked for the last, oh, five centuries or more. Everyone benefits. If trade was zero- sum then other countries would have to get poorer for others to get richer. We don't really see that happen.

Now, an economy can increase by increasing domestic supply alone. Germany, Japan and America all did this between 1945 and 1970. All three had previously gone the other way and attempted to increase their economy by empire building or resource grabbing, that's what the invasion of Czechoslovakia was all about- add more production capacity and capital to the Third Reich or go bust within six weeks (with debts owed almost in toto to banks in London and New York by the way). Same with the Greater South East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere- rubber and oil feedstocks were massively in demand with little industrial product to pay for them. The Americans went into the Phillipines and Panama to control (charge for) the flow of trade. Now, all of those countries realised that their economies didn't need someone else to lose out in order for them to prosper. They all changed gear after the war to focus on satisfying (and growing) domestic demand in the realisation that trade did not have to be zero sum.

Most usually any trade deal has multiple nett beneficiaries, otherwise it isn't entered into... there are always exceptions of course, but this is trade at entire nation- state level we're talking. Very broad brush.

So. What's your understanding of how three- way or more international trade deals are zero sum? Please do elaborate.

You missed out 3rd World Aid and the theory of the development of future market opportunities with recipient liabilities....
Just sayin'!!!
Fetches mon chapeau

 

[Craiglxviii]

You missed out 3rd World Aid and the theory of the development of future market opportunities with recipient liabilities....
Just sayin'!!!
Fetches mon chapeau

I know, but I didn't feel I needed to go that far. And it's really just an extension of three way or more mutual trade... shorter term nett losses for longer term nett gains, with everyone benefitting but understanding the liabilities. It's still non zero sum.

China is a good example, huge amounts of low level business are done with China on no- fixed- contract basis even for very big businesses, and all that could be pulled to (insert any other country) for the next order. The last time I checked that volume of business represents 45% of China's export trade capacity... all liability assumed by the PRC government.

 

[Frontstep]

How does China manage ?
poor political ties with the EU, way outside the customs union, anarchic safety, intellectual property legislation and enforcement.
No Euro gravy train and I bet they don't even hand out the Ferrero's.

 

[davemercedes]

How does China manage ?
poor political ties with the EU, way outside the customs union, anarchic safety, intellectual property legislation and enforcement.
No Euro gravy train and I bet they don't even hand out the Ferrero's.

They manage by having an extremely low wage bill thus producing extremely cheap products. When they can provide items as low as one tenth of the price in Europe they don't need political ties with the EU, they have learnt to do the paperwork to cope with the customs union, and at the prices they charge nobody cares a fig about anarchic safety, intellectual property legislation and enforcement. And at the prices they charge you can afford to buy buy your own Ferrero's!

Why else are things like Apple iPads made in China? Simple - they're cheap for Apple but very good business for the Chinese - by their standards they are providing extremely good and relatively well paid jobs and they produce the products strictly according to the standard and design that Apple specifies. The same applies of course to a huge percentage of things on the electrical products shelves in virtually every shop here - you couldn't even buy the components of a steam iron for the price it ends up boxed, shipped and delivered to the store in UK.

The margins our stores make on such stuff is huge - bordering on scandalous: When we replaced a light in our dining room with a multi-ball thing where each ball has a halogen bulb. I went to one of the big sheds to get some spare bulbs but decided I wasn't willing to take out a mortgage for a pack of three bulbs, so I shopped on the "Bay". Four weeks later I had a pack of ten - postpaid - for the price of one at "you know who". I wasn't worried about quality because the ones on the shelf over here are made in China anyway (and the seller had done thousands of sales with no negative feedback)!

 

[Craiglxviii]

Erm Dave... the iPhone costs Apple around $250 made in China. Not that that's not cheap for what it is, but they aren't £5 worth of components, just saying.

China's wage bill is rising. Already electronics assembly is swinging back around to Western manufacturing as the Chinese trades unions movement is starting to take effect- yes they have them!

True story. On my first visit to Shenzhen we went to an electronics plant. Big one, 4000 production staff in dormitories. I asked what the sign pinned to the door leading from the accom to production read: "Warning! Foreign devils visiting! Wear PPE!"

 

[davemercedes]

Hang on Craig - $250 = £196 (probably less because like any large company Apple will forward buy currency when it's down etc).

£196 + £5 carriage = £201 Landed Cost ain't bad for something sells to the end user at £500 - £700. So on the cheapest one Apple make c.£150 and the dealer makes c.£150. Maybe that's why Apple dealers don't go t-ts up like others do very often.

Apple certainly aren't struggling are they (?) May 2, 2017 — they announced financial results for its fiscal 2017 second quarter ended April 1, 2017. The Company posted quarterly revenue of $52.9 billion! Their 2016 year showed a disgraceful fall in their Gross margin - they achieved only 38 percent, compared to 39.9 percent the year before!

Of course the main thing is the R&D that goes into the product itself - my iPad II is as good as it was on day-one (must be 5 years old by now?) - especially for photo/video etc and the OS has been updated for fee at least five times.

Anyway, I'm only jealous!

Quick aside... in Shenzen there used to be a lot of absolutely kosher "copies" of items such as Levis available at ridiculous prices. The rag shop factories used to get an order for 100,000 but make an extra twenty thousand and flog them off to back street traders. The Chinese government stepped in and stopped it. I had a job coming up in Moscow and admit I was very tempted to look for a suitcase full because they were still highly valued but hard to get there.

 

[davemercedes]

I am still utterly confused by your constant suggestion that countries are not queuing up to do trade with us of course they are its what they do, what do you think Ambassadors do all day hand out the Ferrero Rochers ?

Countries that hate us trade with us and vice versa.

Why does any EU country want to stop selling us goods or services .

Bumbling Boris made the original rather stupid remark to counter Obama's comment that we would be at the back of the queue to get any deals with USA. Boris implied that we would get more from "Tom Dick and Harry" than USA. In that respect I countered back and still do - where are they, who are they what are they selling/buying and is it worth it to us? It's not such a difficult question except that it's just a "Borisism".

 

[Craiglxviii]

Dave,

Right now we represent a willing supplier for a number of goods and services typically in the high to very high value-add sectors:

Pharma design & manufacture.
Chemicals plant design, build and maintenance.
Oil & gas system design engineering.
Mining system design engineering.
Pipeline design engineering.
Competitive sourcing for the above.
High efficiency carriageway design.
High efficiency building materials.
Automotive design (concept).
Automotive design engineering.
Automotive manufacture.
High power/ efficiency electronics design & manufCture.
Warship design and build.
Weapons design and volume manufacturing.