Citing Brexit, automaker Tesla chooses Germany over UK for new facilities

First topic message reminder :

The Tesla chief executive, Elon Musk, has said Brexit uncertainty played a role in the firm’s decision to build its first European factory in Germany rather than the UK.

The billionaire entrepreneur revealed that the firm’s European battery plant would be built on the outskirts of Berlin.

Speaking to Auto Express after making the announcement, Musk said: “Brexit [uncertainty] made it too risky to put a Gigafactory in the UK.”

The US electric carmaker also plans to locate a research and development base in the German capital. Musk announced the Berlin decision at a car industry awards ceremony on Tuesday night hosted by the German tabloid Bild.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/13/tesla-cites-brexit-as-germany-chosen-over-uk-for-european-plant-elon-musk

There will be plenty of ways that have nothing to do with the EU in which Brexit will hurt the UK.

But at least this guy's got something to smile about!

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So a small number of companies and not the many that continue to move here?
Musk did not decide Germany based on Brexit itself
He decided due to the continued reality of this not being resolved yet
So why are you only listening to some companies and not all?
Hence the problem with remoaners
I at least listen to all and yet you are selective, based on your bias

Go figure

If the price of companies coming to the UK is severe derregulation then that won't be worth it.

Name some companies coming to the UK because of Brexit.

It isn't a few, these are just noteworthy examples, and if we end up with a bad trade agreement, or no deal, more will go/stay away.

Name companies?

No problem
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/204004/UK_European_Headquarters_Brochure.pdf

https://thenextweb.com/uk/2012/09/06/raspberry-pi-moves-manufacturing-china-uk/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27046286

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/9937889/AstraZeneca-moves-HQ-to-Cambridge-in-research-revamp.html

Fuck me, sometimes you really come across as a really indoctrinated  drone Eilzel
Brainwashed people like yourself you cannot look at both sides is the problems we face today
Again i voted to remain and would rather we did, but the bullshit that you come with on this is not only embarressing. It shows again how like religious idiots you are led by fear

Those are some lame links, if that is the best you can do then I am even more sure how negative the outlook is than I was before.

The first link is a government brochure which it says in massive text across every page was withdrawn in May this year, so totally irrelevant.
Raspberry pi is a UK company, I am sure many UK companies will continue to operate here, or choose for their own reasons to operate in their home country. My concern is with with foreign companies who would otherwise invest and operate from here.
Starbucks HQ is nice, though hardly going to supply a massive amount of jobs in manufacturing.
The only real positive there is AstraZeneca. Tbf, the UK leads in pharmaceuticals, so this can be expected.

But really, what you've shown in no way significantly counters the wider narrative that big manufacturing companies have FAR more reason to operate from say Germany or Poland, at the heart of the EU and with tariff free trade guaranteed, than in the uncertain post-Brexit landscape of Britain.

And this is why its pointless debating someone so biased, that when given examples after asking for them. You still try to worm out of this and not in fact admit to being wrong

Please continue to bury your head in the sand buddy

Laters

phildidge wrote:And this is why its pointless debating someone so biased, that when given examples after asking for them. You still try to worm out of this and not in fact admit to being wrong

Please continue to bury your head in the sand buddy

Laters

Ah, so what you wanted was for me to say "Oh yes, I see, a British company coming home, an office for Starbucks and a pharma company, backed by an out-of-date government brochure, clearly I was totally wrong."

Meanwhile, here are over 20 companies that already moved, or will move, because of, or partly because of, Brexit: https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/23/companies-collapsed-moved-abroad-since-brexit-10795029/

The list of companies who have moved out of uk to other EU countries, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN THE EU, is huge...!

Tommy Monk wrote:The list of companies who have moved  out of uk to other EU countries, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN THE EU, is huge...!

Then show it.

Figures mean nearly 1,000 adults a day have joined workforce in past three years
A record 15.55 million women are in work – an employment rate of 72.1 per cent
The Office for National Statistics data also showed wages now rising at fast rate
Average wage is now £27,976, becoming the fastest growth rate since June 2008
Figures are in stark contrast to predictions made by Treasury during referendum

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7353989/More-million-people-employment-Brexit-vote.html



How is it that within that time the Uk has been able to create over a million jobs and how unemployment has continued to basically go down, if we are to believe the bullshit claims from remainers?


Like I say. I every single scare bullshit story prediction have all been wrong by the remainers

Every single one of them and yet the remainers still hold to these ridiculous claims

When will they admit they were wrong?

phildidge wrote:Figures mean nearly 1,000 adults a day have joined workforce in past three years
A record 15.55 million women are in work – an employment rate of 72.1 per cent
The Office for National Statistics data also showed wages now rising at fast rate
Average wage is now £27,976, becoming the fastest growth rate since June 2008
Figures are in stark contrast to predictions made by Treasury during referendum

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7353989/More-million-people-employment-Brexit-vote.html



How is it that within that time the Uk has been able to create over a million jobs and how unemployment has continued to basically go down, if we are to believe the bullshit claims from remainers?


Like I say. I every single scare bullshit story prediction have all been wrong by the remainers

Every single one of them and yet the remainers still hold to these ridiculous claims

When will they admit they were wrong?

There are a lot more part-time jobs and zero hours contracts than there used to be, the numbers for both have crawled but the Tories don't mention that when boasted of high employment rates - wonder why.

Of course, employment hasn't been hit by the actual even of Brexit yet, but it will.

Cue "they said it would fall after the referendum"

You cannot make it up the poor excuses that Eizel comes out with

He seems to forget many people are happy with doing part time work and zero contract hours, but hey ho. So much for some buisnesses leaving the Uk, because its not effected unemployment and nor has it stopped the creation of a million jobs

It does not matter anyway, if the Polls are correct the Tories will gain a majority in Parliment and Breixt will go ahead

phildidge wrote:You cannot make it up the poor excuses that Eizel comes out with

He seems to forget many people are happy with doing part time work and zero contract hours, but hey ho. So much for some buisnesses leaving the Uk, because its not effected unemployment and nor has it stopped the creation of a million jobs

It does not matter anyway, if the Polls are correct the Tories will gain a majority in Parliment and Breixt will go ahead

You are right in that the Tories will probably win a majority (a narrow one imo) and Brexit will go ahead - nothing anyone says here is going to affect that likely outcome.

However, to say it 'doesn't matter' is to show a dismissive lack of concern. It WILL matter. Only, it will be too late when a lot of people realise that. I hope to be proven wrong, but the words of many businesses, scientists and NHS workers suggest I won't be.

And I never said some people aren't happy with zero hours and part-time work, but a good number are not, just look at the so-called 'McStrikes' last week to see a glaring example of that.

phildidge wrote:You cannot make it up the poor excuses that Eizel comes out with

He seems to forget many people are happy with doing part time work and zero contract hours, but hey ho. So much for some buisnesses leaving the Uk, because its not effected unemployment and nor has it stopped the creation of a million jobs

It does not matter anyway, if the Polls are correct the Tories will gain a majority in Parliment and Breixt will go ahead
.

You claim that "many" people are happy with "zero hour" contracts,  oh Dodgey One  ???

Repeated surveys in Oz and the US show that well over 70% of those on casual contracts want more hours, and many of those working "full time" on 'casual' and 'zero hours' contracts should actually be employed as 'permanent/fulltime' employees  --  I doubt that Britain would me much different in that respect..

Yet you seem to think that because a minority are happy to be treated like shit and effectively paid less than minimum wages, everything is okay on the employment front ?  The current global downturn in the retail industry has a lot to do with the bad policies and downward pressures on wages from conservative "trickle down/low corporate tax" politicians and their big business masters over the past quarter century..

'Wolfie wrote:

phildidge wrote:You cannot make it up the poor excuses that Eizel comes out with

He seems to forget many people are happy with doing part time work and zero contract hours, but hey ho. So much for some buisnesses leaving the Uk, because its not effected unemployment and nor has it stopped the creation of a million jobs

It does not matter anyway, if the Polls are correct the Tories will gain a majority in Parliment and Breixt will go ahead
.

You claim that "many" people are happy with "zero hour" contracts,  oh Dodgey One  ???

Repeated surveys in Oz and the US show that well over 70% ..

What has Australia and the US have to do with people in the UK?

phildidge wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

phildidge wrote:You cannot make it up the poor excuses that Eizel comes out with

He seems to forget many people are happy with doing part time work and zero contract hours, but hey ho. So much for some buisnesses leaving the Uk, because its not effected unemployment and nor has it stopped the creation of a million jobs

It does not matter anyway, if the Polls are correct the Tories will gain a majority in Parliment and Breixt will go ahead
.

You claim that "many" people are happy with "zero hour" contracts,  oh Dodgey One  ???

Repeated surveys in Oz and the US show that well over 70% ..

What has Australia and the US have to do with people in the UK?

Because humans are humans. It's pure arrogance to assert everyone on zero hours or part-time work is happy with it. Many are not, not in the UK, USA or Australia. Last weeks McStrikes were just one example.

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:You cannot make it up the poor excuses that Eizel comes out with

He seems to forget many people are happy with doing part time work and zero contract hours, but hey ho. So much for some buisnesses leaving the Uk, because its not effected unemployment and nor has it stopped the creation of a million jobs

It does not matter anyway, if the Polls are correct the Tories will gain a majority in Parliment and Breixt will go ahead

You are right in that the Tories will probably win a majority (a narrow one imo) and Brexit will go ahead - nothing anyone says here is going to affect that likely outcome.

However, to say it 'doesn't matter' is to show a dismissive lack of concern. It WILL matter. Only, it will be too late when a lot of people realise that. I hope to be proven wrong, but the words of many businesses, scientists and NHS workers suggest I won't be.

And I never said some people aren't happy with zero hours and part-time work, but a good number are not, just look at the so-called 'McStrikes' last week to see a glaring example of that.

I have zero lack of concern over this, because every prediction by the doom and gloomers has been emphatically wrong

On top of that the Boris deal means we will continue to trade with the EU. Hence for companies to want to move after Brexit makes very little sense and in reality hardly any will do so. The fear was over a hard Brexit and that is not going to happen

If those good number are unhappy, then they should find another job. Its that simple and there is plenty of full time jobs on the job market. Nobody is forcing anyone to do zero contract hours. So if they are unhappy, that is their issue and its generally those with a far left biased. Who are middle class earners not in such roles whinging about them

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

What has Australia and the US have to do with people in the UK?

Because humans are humans. It's pure arrogance to assert everyone on zero hours or part-time work is happy with it. Many are not, not in the UK, USA or Australia. Last weeks McStrikes were just one example.

Its whataboutism, as the Uk and Australia are very different in the kinds of views people have compared to the UK

Hence its irrelevant what they think. Being this is about the Uk and how Uk people feel over them

Wow one company striking? Stop the press

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

What has Australia and the US have to do with people in the UK?

Because humans are humans. It's pure arrogance to assert everyone on zero hours or part-time work is happy with it. Many are not, not in the UK, USA or Australia. Last weeks McStrikes were just one example.

Its whataboutism, as the Uk and Australia are very different in the kinds of views people have compared to the UK

Hence its irrelevant what they think. Being this is about the Uk and how Uk people feel over them

Wow one company striking? Stop the press

Typical arrogant Tory - "British people on zero hours contracts love their uncertain work hours and low pay, they choose it!" And the usual exceptionalism where their country is concerned "just because Australians on low pay and limited hours don't like it doesn't mean British people do."

McDonald's was one example, if you think ONLY McDonald's employees feel that way then you're being deliberately ignorant.

But of course, as a Tory all views but yours are irrelevant.

And as a Lefty, yours are of course are always right !

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Its whataboutism, as the Uk and Australia are very different in the kinds of views people have compared to the UK

Hence its irrelevant what they think. Being this is about the Uk and how Uk people feel over them

Wow one company striking? Stop the press

Typical arrogant Tory - "British people on zero hours contracts love their uncertain work hours and low pay, they choose it!" And the usual exceptionalism where their country is concerned "just because Australians on low pay and limited hours don't like it doesn't mean British people do."

McDonald's was one example, if you think ONLY McDonald's employees feel that way then you're being deliberately ignorant.

But of course, as a Tory all views but yours are irrelevant.

lol the champange middle class socialist is upset, because he thinks that people are forced into zero contract hours.

Sorry that is bullshit. There is nothing stopping people applying for jobs elsewhere or even learning a trade if not qualified.
I cannot be done with people excusing laziness or people who do not have the get up and go to better further their lives.

If people do not like zero contract hours, then more fool them for applying to a job that is based on one

Even worse if they have been in one for over year and have failed to apply for full time employment elsewhere.

What you discount is that some people expect everything laid out for them on a plate and this is the generation of the youth today.

The only group who would find difficulties obtain some trades and skills, would be people with disabilities.

Anyone else who has not looked to better their lifes with more skills, are simple bone idol

Like I say such contracts suit students, mums with children and espcially people claiming Universal Benifits. AS the later are better off being part time or on zero contract hours. As the Government only takes off 63 pence in the pound of their earnings off their allowance. So If someone is claiming 850 a month say and earns £300 a month. They will only have £189 deducted from their benefits

I never claim all views were irrelevant, but I get bored at the excuses you make for people. When there is nothingh stoppping them bettering their lives

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Its whataboutism, as the Uk and Australia are very different in the kinds of views people have compared to the UK

Hence its irrelevant what they think. Being this is about the Uk and how Uk people feel over them

Wow one company striking? Stop the press

Typical arrogant Tory - "British people on zero hours contracts love their uncertain work hours and low pay, they choose it!" And the usual exceptionalism where their country is concerned "just because Australians on low pay and limited hours don't like it doesn't mean British people do."

McDonald's was one example, if you think ONLY McDonald's employees feel that way then you're being deliberately ignorant.

But of course, as a Tory all views but yours are irrelevant.

lol the champange middle class socialist is upset, because he thinks that people are forced into zero contract hours.

Sorry that is bullshit. There is nothing stopping people applying for jobs elsewhere or even learning a trade if not qualified.
I cannot be done with people excusing laziness or people who do not have the get up and go to better further their lives.

If people do not like zero contract hours, then more fool them for applying to a job that is based on one

Even worse if they have been in one for over year and have failed to apply for full time employment elsewhere.

What you discount is that some people expect everything laid out for them on a plate and this is the generation of the youth today.

The only group who would find difficulties obtain some trades and skills, would be people with disabilities.

Anyone else who has not looked to better their lifes with more skills, are simple bone idol

Like I say such contracts suit students, mums with children and espcially people claiming Universal Benifits. AS the later are better off being part time or on zero contract hours. As the Government only takes off 63 pence in the pound of their earnings off their allowance. So If someone is claiming 850 a month say and earns £300 a month. They will only have £189 deducted from their benefits

I never claim all views were irrelevant, but I get bored at the excuses you make for people. When there is nothingh stoppping them bettering their lives

I have never claimed these kinds of jobs don't suit some people, but your assertion was a general statement that implied everyone in these jobs was happy in them.

Now you've changed to stating those who aren't don't deserve any better and are 'bone idle'.

You really are a text book Tory.

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

lol the champange middle class socialist is upset, because he thinks that people are forced into zero contract hours.

Sorry that is bullshit. There is nothing stopping people applying for jobs elsewhere or even learning a trade if not qualified.
I cannot be done with people excusing laziness or people who do not have the get up and go to better further their lives.

If people do not like zero contract hours, then more fool them for applying to a job that is based on one

Even worse if they have been in one for over year and have failed to apply for full time employment elsewhere.

What you discount is that some people expect everything laid out for them on a plate and this is the generation of the youth today.

The only group who would find difficulties obtain some trades and skills, would be people with disabilities.

Anyone else who has not looked to better their lifes with more skills, are simple bone idol

Like I say such contracts suit students, mums with children and espcially people claiming Universal Benifits. AS the later are better off being part time or on zero contract hours. As the Government only takes off 63 pence in the pound of their earnings off their allowance. So If someone is claiming 850 a month say and earns £300 a month. They will only have £189 deducted from their benefits

I never claim all views were irrelevant, but I get bored at the excuses you make for people. When there is nothingh stoppping them bettering their lives

I have never claimed these kinds of jobs don't suit some people, but your assertion was a general statement that implied everyone in these jobs was happy in them.

Now you've changed to stating those who aren't don't deserve any better and are 'bone idle'.

You really are a text book Tory.

Wrong again commie

I said people moaning about them and not furthering their life are lazy

As again what is stopping them from making their lives better?

Its called common sense and if someone applies to a role which is a zero contract hours and dislikes such a contract

Then more fool them

So not changing anything, its you doing that because you have nothing to actually defend such people

phil wrote:I said people moaning about them and not furthering their life are lazy

As again what is stopping them from making their lives better?

This is a 'social theory'. Are you a socialist?

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:I said people moaning about them and not furthering their life are lazy

As again what is stopping them from making their lives better?

This is a 'social theory'.  Are you a socialist?

It predates any form of political capoitalism and socialism

Why do you always tell porkies?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This is a 'social theory'.  Are you a socialist?

It predates any form of political capoitalism and socialism

Why do you always tell porkies?

Well, there are two basic theories: one, where there is no social theory, and anyone can do anything they want; and two, where their is a social theory recognized, derived from the social existence of mankind, and we should bend efforts to not violating it, or somehow conforming to it.

If you have a social theory, then by definition you are a socialist. The economic theory of socialism is but one example: you put the social entity before avarice, and pool resources to capitalize production. That way you bypass profit, and all the shenanigans to cheat others and create monopolies.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:


It predates any form of political capoitalism and socialism

Why do you always tell porkies?

Well, there are two basic theories: one, where there is no social theory, and anyone can do anything they want; and two, where their is a social theory recognized, derived from the social existence of mankind, and we should bend efforts to not violating it, or somehow conforming to it.

If you have a social theory, then by definition you are a socialist.  The economic theory of socialism is but one example: you put the social entity before avarice, and pool resources to capitalize production.  That way you bypass profit, and all the shenanigans to cheat others and create monopolies.

No it means socialism has plagerized an age old view point as its own or more likely you are attempting to do so
It does not make a person a socialist nor is it born from socialism

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The list of companies who have moved  out of uk to other EU countries, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN THE EU, is huge...!

Then show it.

https://nyebevannews.co.uk/i-fact-checked-the-what-has-the-eu-done-for-us-viral-post-and-the-results-turned-me-into-a-brexiteer/

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, there are two basic theories: one, where there is no social theory, and anyone can do anything they want; and two, where their is a social theory recognized, derived from the social existence of mankind, and we should bend efforts to not violating it, or somehow conforming to it.

If you have a social theory, then by definition you are a socialist.  The economic theory of socialism is but one example: you put the social entity before avarice, and pool resources to capitalize production.  That way you bypass profit, and all the shenanigans to cheat others and create monopolies.

No it means socialism has plagerized an age old view point as its own or more likely you are attempting to do so
It does not make a person a socialist nor is it born from socialism

Follow the roots of the word.

Merriam-Webster wrote:so·cial
/ˈsōSHəl/
adjective

1. relating to society or its organization:
"alcoholism is recognized as a major social problem"
synonyms
communal, community, community-based, collective, group, ... moreantonyms
individual
2. needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities:
"we are social beings as well as individuals"
noun

1. an informal social gathering, especially one organized by the members of a particular club or group:
"a church social"

Then 'social theory'-

Wiki wrote:Social theories are analytical frameworks, or paradigms, that are used to study and interpret social phenomena.

Then socialism-

Merriam-Webster wrote:socialism noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

No it means socialism has plagerized an age old view point as its own or more likely you are attempting to do so
It does not make a person a socialist nor is it born from socialism

Follow the roots of the word.

I do not need to follow the roots of the word, as again i know the concept is older than socialism

You are not even showing the view I made in regards to bettering your life is unique to socialism

So posting defintions, which offer nothing on the view

Is redundent and many of the stories of bettering our lives again pre-date any political view point

Which many conflict with socialism on gaining power and wealth, from humble beginnings. Everything placed in their way did not stop them bettering their own lifes

I guess you have never heard of Dick Whittington? Or how about Joseph with his Multi-couloured robes?

So again stop inventing bullshit to claim ownership of a concept that pre-dates socialist bullshit by thousands of years

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The list of companies who have moved  out of uk to other EU countries, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN THE EU, is huge...!

Then show it.

https://nyebevannews.co.uk/i-fact-checked-the-what-has-the-eu-done-for-us-viral-post-and-the-results-turned-me-into-a-brexiteer/

Happy now Ben ?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The list of companies who have moved  out of uk to other EU countries, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN THE EU, is huge...!

Then show it.

https://nyebevannews.co.uk/i-fact-checked-the-what-has-the-eu-done-for-us-viral-post-and-the-results-turned-me-into-a-brexiteer/

Wow, you're mad that companies have moved to other countries to chase cheaper labor forces and lower taxes?

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/10-iconic-us-companies-that-have-moved-headquarters-abroad.html

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/A_Spike_in_Corporate_Inversions.pdf

And it just keeps happening:

https://qz.com/1144201/under-trump-us-jobs-are-moving-overseas-even-faster-than-before/

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:




https://nyebevannews.co.uk/i-fact-checked-the-what-has-the-eu-done-for-us-viral-post-and-the-results-turned-me-into-a-brexiteer/

Wow, you're mad that companies have moved to other countries to chase cheaper labor forces and lower taxes?

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/10-iconic-us-companies-that-have-moved-headquarters-abroad.html

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/A_Spike_in_Corporate_Inversions.pdf

And it just keeps happening:

https://qz.com/1144201/under-trump-us-jobs-are-moving-overseas-even-faster-than-before/

The OP is trying to claim that Tesla boss would have chosen to open a production plant in uk, but only decided not to do so because of brexit...


Then the claim was made that many companies were leaving uk because of brexit...


All I showed is that many more companies have left the UK whilst uk has been in the EU... And many of those have had special funding from the EU to carry out their relocation out of the UK...



Then you post some irrelevant stuff about companies that have left the USA... trying to make it linked with Trump being president... but you appear to have missed the fact that the first article was written in 2016... before Trump was even president!!!

phildidge wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:


You claim that "many" people are happy with "zero hour" contracts,  oh Dodgey One  ???

Repeated surveys in Oz and the US show that well over 70% ..

What has Australia and the US have to do with people in the UK?

Oz and US employment/labour markets are generally better off than Britain's...

Making claims of how "many" Brit's love their 'zero hours contracts' and crap wages so much, that much harder to believe..

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:
Then show it.

https://nyebevannews.co.uk/i-fact-checked-the-what-has-the-eu-done-for-us-viral-post-and-the-results-turned-me-into-a-brexiteer/

Companies started moving out of Britain more than 200 years ago.   Well before the EU was even dreamed of..

Companies in the USA, Canada, Oz and NZ have been 'offshoring' businesses for decades...   No EU influences there either --  but rather the cheap labour, and poor OH&S and environmental regulations..

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:
lol the champange middle class socialist is upset, because he thinks that people are forced into zero contract hours.

Sorry that is bullshit. There is nothing stopping people applying for jobs elsewhere or even learning a trade if not qualified.
I cannot be done with people excusing laziness or people who do not have the get up and go to better further their lives.

If people do not like zero contract hours, then more fool them for applying to a job that is based on one

Even worse if they have been in one for over year and have failed to apply for full time employment elsewhere.

What you discount is that some people expect everything laid out for them on a plate and this is the generation of the youth today.

The only group who would find difficulties obtain some trades and skills, would be people with disabilities.

Anyone else who has not looked to better their lifes with more skills, are simple bone idol

Like I say such contracts suit students, mums with children and espcially people claiming Universal Benifits. AS the later are better off being part time or on zero contract hours. As the Government only takes off 63 pence in the pound of their earnings off their allowance. So If someone is claiming 850 a month say and earns £300 a month. They will only have £189 deducted from their benefits

I never claim all views were irrelevant, but I get bored at the excuses you make for people. When there is nothingh stoppping them bettering their lives

I have never claimed these kinds of jobs don't suit some people, but your assertion was a general statement that implied everyone in these jobs was happy in them.

Now you've changed to stating those who aren't don't deserve any better and are 'bone idle'.

You really are a text book Tory.

Poor little Dodgey...

Keeps on peddling his 'greed is good'/'capitalism creates jobs'/'trickle down'/"socialism created all these problems" balderdash..  And then simply squeals "commies, Marxists, liars !" at his opponents whenever they prove him wrong.

Somebody should send him over to Somalia or South Sudan for a few months, where he can then lecture the workforces there on how it's their own bone idle lazy faults that they can't find work, earn wages --  or even have a home..

(And before Dodger again asks what those farflung hellholes have to do with his own pathetic slave labour ideals, let's remind him that British companies (along with their mercenary 'expeditionary' military stooges..) were front and centre when it came to fucking over those countries).

'Wolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I have never claimed these kinds of jobs don't suit some people, but your assertion was a general statement that implied everyone in these jobs was happy in them.

Now you've changed to stating those who aren't don't deserve any better and are 'bone idle'.

You really are a text book Tory.

Poor little Dodgey...

Keeps on peddling his 'greed is good'/'capitalism creates jobs'/'trickle down'/"socialism created all these problems" balderdash..  And then simply squeals "commies, Marxists, liars !" at his opponents whenever they prove him wrong.
.[/i]

Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than anything else. Where socialism has killed tens of millions

Its a no brainer really but the dumb socialists like yourself are in denial of history

https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/

'Wolfie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

What has Australia and the US have to do with people in the UK?

Oz and US employment/labour markets are generally better off than Britain's...

Making claims of how "many" Brit's love their 'zero hours contracts' and crap wages so much, that much harder to believe..

Could care less about the US and Australia in a debate about the UK

Its again utterly irrelevant

What matters in this debate is how the British feel

phildidge wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I have never claimed these kinds of jobs don't suit some people, but your assertion was a general statement that implied everyone in these jobs was happy in them.

Now you've changed to stating those who aren't don't deserve any better and are 'bone idle'.

You really are a text book Tory.

Poor little Dodgey...

Keeps on peddling his 'greed is good'/'capitalism creates jobs'/'trickle down'/"socialism created all these problems" balderdash..  And then simply squeals "commies, Marxists, liars !" at his opponents whenever they prove him wrong.
.[/i]

Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than anything else. Where socialism has killed tens of millions

Its a no brainer really but the dumb socialists like yourself are in denial of history

https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/

Perhaps you could start being honest and saying that while capitalism has helped millions in many countries, it has only done so thanks to the incorporation of some socailistic policies. Pure socialism or capitalism wouldn't be great.

As for saying US and Oz views are irrelevant, that point is as moot as the gun nuts in America who dismiss comparisons to the UK and elsewhere by claiming exceptionalism. As I already pointed out, many in the UK are not happy on those contracts, and you dismissed those too on the grounds of being bone idle.

Apparently everyone is irrelevant to a tinpot Tory.

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than anything else. Where socialism has killed tens of millions

Its a no brainer really but the dumb socialists like yourself are in denial of history

https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/

Perhaps you could start being honest and saying that while capitalism has helped millions in many countries, it has only done so thanks to the incorporation of some socailistic policies. Pure socialism or capitalism wouldn't be great.

As for saying US and Oz views are irrelevant, that point is as moot as the gun nuts in America who dismiss comparisons to the UK and elsewhere by claiming exceptionalism. As I already pointed out, many in the UK are not happy on those contracts, and you dismissed those too on the grounds of being bone idle.

Apparently everyone is irrelevant to a tinpot Tory.

And what socialist policies would these be that helped people out of poverty? The Ukranian famine? How about the Chinese programs that saw tens of millions dead?

Yeah those polices got them out of poverty and even of existiing

Far left extremist commie

Wow so you now compare peoples views on types on contracts to gun deaths?

That has to go down as the dummiest whataboutism going

As peoples lives are not under threat by what choices they make over job contracts and to elude to peoples views on access to guns, which causes the deaths of countless people. Is as idiotic as it comes

If a person is in a job and they do not like it, why stay there?

More fool the idiot that does

So now let me use poor whataboutism on you based on your methodology of not liking something

Shall we stop homosexuality being taught in school because some Brits do not like it?

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than anything else. Where socialism has killed tens of millions

Its a no brainer really but the dumb socialists like yourself are in denial of history

https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/

Perhaps you could start being honest and saying that while capitalism has helped millions in many countries, it has only done so thanks to the incorporation of some socailistic policies. Pure socialism or capitalism wouldn't be great.

As for saying US and Oz views are irrelevant, that point is as moot as the gun nuts in America who dismiss comparisons to the UK and elsewhere by claiming exceptionalism. As I already pointed out, many in the UK are not happy on those contracts, and you dismissed those too on the grounds of being bone idle.

Apparently everyone is irrelevant to a tinpot Tory.

And what socialist policies would these be that helped people out of poverty? The Ukranian famine? How about the Chinese programs that saw tens of millions dead?

Yeah those polices got them out of poverty and even of existiing

Far left extremist commie

Wow so you now compare peoples views on types on contracts to gun deaths?

That has to go down as the dummiest whataboutism going

As peoples lives are not under threat by what choices they make over job contracts and to elude to peoples views on access to guns, which causes the deaths of countless people. Is as idiotic as it comes

If a person is in a job and they do not like it, why stay there?

More fool the idiot that does

So now let me use poor whataboutism on you based on your methodology of not liking something

Shall we stop homosexuality being taught in school because some Brits do not like it?

If you think by socialist policies I was referring to Mao's Great Leap Forward then you are obviously not being serious. Will leave it there until you realise the (pretty obvious) kind of policies I was referring to.

phildidge wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:


Poor little Dodgey...

Keeps on peddling his 'greed is good'/'capitalism creates jobs'/'trickle down'/"socialism created all these problems" balderdash..  And then simply squeals "commies, Marxists, liars !" at his opponents whenever they prove him wrong.
.[/i]

Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than anything else. Where socialism has killed tens of millions

Its a no brainer really but the dumb socialists like yourself are in denial of history

https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/

Bullshite. 1940-50's propaganda. Utter fantasy.

phil wrote:And what socialist policies would these be that helped people out of poverty?

The US military, a wholly owned subsidiary of the US government, and thus an entirely socialist organization, has released many, many contracts, that employ millions in the shipyards, in the air frame factories, in the power plants, in the automotive industry, and indeed in every industry in the universe.

You are pursuing a self-fulfilling prophecy.  As to those countries that are successful, you label them capitalist.  As to those countries that are not successful, you label them socialist.  Then, in a massive tautology, you declare socialism to be a failure, and capitalism a success.

Les is absolutely correct.  No nation, or political economy, is exclusively socialist or capitalist.  You have just prejudged the successful ones to be capitalist, and the unsuccessful ones to be socialist.

I sometimes erroneously criticise 'capitalism' when its 'greed' I mean to criticise. I accept correction on this.

Capitalism has its good points cos it has helped lift people out of poverty and improved their quality of life.

However it also offers opportunities for the extreme greedy to indulge themselves to the max. That's why the 1% exists. It's a glutton's paradise.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than anything else. Where socialism has killed tens of millions

Its a no brainer really but the dumb socialists like yourself are in denial of history

https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/

Bullshite.  1940-50's propaganda.  Utter fantasy.

No its a fact and you cannot deny stats, no matter how hard you tug on your testicles screaming for attention

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:And what socialist policies would these be that helped people out of poverty?

Les is absolutely correct.

So no socialist polices by either yourself and eizel and i love how this really gets up the back of the socialist lovers
They know capitalism has gotten litterally hundreds of millions of people out of poverty
The hundreds of millions of people are living proof of that

The Coming Global Middle-Class Majority: Thank Capitalism, Not Socialism, For The Boom

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/capitalism-global-middle-class-majority/

Jules wrote:I sometimes erroneously criticise 'capitalism' when its 'greed' I mean to criticise. I accept correction on this.

Capitalism has its good points cos it has helped lift people out of poverty and improved their quality of life.

However it also offers opportunities for the extreme greedy to indulge themselves to the max.  That's why the 1% exists. It's a glutton's paradise.

It's commonplace to be laudatory about capitalism, without specifying the economic mechanics that achieve the so-called 'good'.  The problem with capitalism is that it is another (unnecessary) mouth to feed, and that it turns away from society and the collective good, and toward pure selfishness.

The major fault of capitalism is that it erodes and eventually destroys markets.  Whereas classic theorists posited competition as a good thing, it soon became apparent that there are two forms of competition: parallel competition, and cross-competition.  Parallel competition, like a race, is competition with one's self, trying to achieve a personal best.  Cross competition, like a wrestling match, pits combatants against one another directly, and leads directly to the demise of one or the other.  Both kinds are typical in sports.

Everyone recalls the skater, Nancy Kerrigan.  Skaters usually compete by surpassing their own best; their competition is within, and parallel to the performance of others.  However, Kerrigan's opponent in 1994, at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships in Detroit, was Tonya Harding.  After a practice session, Kerrigan was bludgeoned on the right lower thigh with a police baton by an assailant, who was later apprehended and identified as an associate of Harding's husband.  The goal was to prevent Kerrigan from competing in both the National Championships and the Lillehammer 1994 Olympics.  The act forced Kerrigan's withdrawal from the competition.   In broader terms, this was an attempt to turn away from parallel competition, and use cross competition to defeat one's opponent.

Classic economic theorists considered capitalism was a good thing, as it promoted the betterment of people as producers.  Thus, the classic theorists described capitalism as efficient, and aimed at bettering mankind.  In fact, those economic theorists intended parallel competition (one trying to better oneself) in describing the improvement of production, whereas the reality of capitalism is that cross competition takes over (each trying to beat, and eliminate the other).

Cross competition changes the game.  It is no longer a matter of personal best, but simple defeat of the other.  Defeat of the other may or may not be efficient, but it is final.  That’s all that matters.

Capitalism, by embracing cross competition, changed the game of economics as well.  The aim became elimination of other competitions.  We see this everyday in buy-outs and hostile takeovers, etc.  In a greater sense, elimination of other competitors means elimination of the market.  This is the precise definition of monopoly.

Hence, capitalism = monopoly -> profits.  Moreover, the substitution of elimination-of-other-competitors, in place of personal-best, leads to loss of that quest for efficiency.  It is hard for me to cheer for something that is so detrimental to mankind.

Jules wrote:I sometimes erroneously criticise 'capitalism' when its 'greed' I mean to criticise. I accept correction on this.

Capitalism has its good points cos it has helped lift people out of poverty and improved their quality of life.

However it also offers opportunities for the extreme greedy to indulge themselves to the max.  That's why the 1% exists. It's a glutton's paradise.

I completelty agree it has its good and bad points, but socialism does not even come close to capitalism when it has come to help lifting people out of poverty. So there is definately a problem with inequality at the highest levels, and you point out the 1% and 8.6% are still in poverty. That means for 90% it works well. Yes the issue is around the massive gap in inequalty which does need a fair solution

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:I sometimes erroneously criticise 'capitalism' when its 'greed' I mean to criticise. I accept correction on this.

Capitalism has its good points cos it has helped lift people out of poverty and improved their quality of life.

However it also offers opportunities for the extreme greedy to indulge themselves to the max.  That's why the 1% exists. It's a glutton's paradise.

It's commonplace to be laudatory about capitalism, without specifying the economic mechanics that achieve the so-called 'good'.  The problem with capitalism is that it is another (unnecessary) mouth to feed, and that it turns away from society and the collective good, and toward pure selfishness.

The major fault of capitalism is that it erodes and eventually destroys markets.  Whereas classic theorists posited competition as a good thing, it soon became apparent that there are two forms of competition: parallel competition, and cross-competition.  Parallel competition, like a race, is competition with one's self, trying to achieve a personal best.  Cross competition, like a wrestling match, pits combatants against one another directly, and leads directly to the demise of one or the other.  Both kinds are typical in sports.

Everyone recalls the skater, Nancy Kerrigan.  Skaters usually compete by surpassing their own best; their competition is within, and parallel to the performance of others.  However, Kerrigan's opponent in 1994, at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships in Detroit, was Tonya Harding.  After a practice session, Kerrigan was bludgeoned on the right lower thigh with a police baton by an assailant, who was later apprehended and identified as an associate of Harding's husband.  The goal was to prevent Kerrigan from competing in both the National Championships and the Lillehammer 1994 Olympics.  The act forced Kerrigan's withdrawal from the competition.   In broader terms, this was an attempt to turn away from parallel competition, and use cross competition to defeat one's opponent.

Classic economic theorists considered capitalism was a good thing, as it promoted the betterment of people as producers.  Thus, the classic theorists described capitalism as efficient, and aimed at bettering mankind.  In fact, those economic theorists intended parallel competition (one trying to better oneself) in describing the improvement of production, whereas the reality of capitalism is that cross competition takes over (each trying to beat, and eliminate the other).

Cross competition changes the game.  It is no longer a matter of personal best, but simple defeat of the other.  Defeat of the other may or may not be efficient, but it is final.  That’s all that matters.

Capitalism, by embracing cross competition, changed the game of economics as well.  The aim became elimination of other competitions.  We see this everyday in buy-outs and hostile takeovers, etc.  In a greater sense, elimination of other competitors means elimination of the market.  This is the precise definition of monopoly.

Hence, capitalism = monopoly -> profits.  Moreover, the substitution of elimination-of-other-competitors, in place of personal-best, leads to loss of that quest for efficiency.  It is hard for me to cheer for something that is so detrimental to mankind.

I hear you Quill. x
I've read half of it,  will finish reading it tomorrow when I return.
Have a  for how much thought you have put into it.

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:I sometimes erroneously criticise 'capitalism' when its 'greed' I mean to criticise. I accept correction on this.

Capitalism has its good points cos it has helped lift people out of poverty and improved their quality of life.

However it also offers opportunities for the extreme greedy to indulge themselves to the max.  That's why the 1% exists. It's a glutton's paradise.

It's commonplace to be laudatory about capitalism, without specifying the economic mechanics that achieve the so-called 'good'.  The problem with capitalism is that it is another (unnecessary) mouth to feed, and that it turns away from society and the collective good, and toward pure selfishness.

That is a hell of a lot of gibberish, when some of the most chaitable people are the 1%
Let alone all the many people out of povert and through innovation have started their own companies
All not possible without capitalism
All you have done is basically argued poor arguments by the few economicts that are basically Marxists
Which is interesting as no Marist system has ever been viable and in fact have all been failures
The reality is the number of people in poverty continues to decrease year in and out
In no time in history have we had a time when the vast majority of people no longer live in poverty
You can argue what some marxist economics think all you like
Yet every marxist and socialist model has never worked economically
Not one, and the only hybred socialist ones, use capitalism
The fact that its created more and more jobs for people. Shows the view this makes people selfish is inherantly wrong in the vast majority of people.
What we have here is you dislike the success of people and whilst there is certainly a problem with wealth inequality, the vast 90% of people globally who have gained their lives being better. Has never made them greedy in the main or selfish. If that was the case, then millions would not give to chairty and yet llitteraly millions do
So the spurious claims you make on capitalism simple do not fit to the reality of the world today
Yes some people are greedy, but that has nothing to do with capitalism
As you will find greedy people throughot history

Nonsense. You have no economics to discuss. You just espouse things you heard at family dinners, from your knuckle-dragging great uncle decades ago. The world has moved on.

If you can't talk economics, get out of the way so that others can.

Dodgey and DopeyDawg should be coralled together over in the corner,  far away from the rest of the forum...

Where those two clueless nongs can keep on throwing their "capitalism is great" bulldust and "ekonomiks !" ignorance at each other..

Leaving the adults to get on with more rational debates.