As there is no EU demos it is necessary for the support of the electorate to be bought using populist measures such as abolishing roaming charges.
The EU argues that the cost of using your mobile phone either at home or abroad should not differ. However, there is no single EU telephony market. Operators who have a network in just one country will have to pay a counterpart in another country for use of their infrastructure. Therefore there will be a difference in costs for using phones at home and abroad. The idea of uniform telephony prices across the EU is a nonsense.
The market was never broken as roaming charges had been falling for many years. The EU is engaging in price control where it is not required. They should divert some of their attention to addressing the EU's real failings instead of pursuing imaginary boogeymen.
Miss Plato, I think it's just Brave New World. The Chinese Government has delivered immense economic growth, so people aren't fussed (generally) about the lack of political freedom.
If economic growth nose-dived, the situation could rapidly become sub-optimal.
Mind you, the government controls the media, and seeks to control the internet, but it's hard to imagine they can do the latter comprehensively.
There also appears to be a total absence of an alternative, in terms of political parties, religious organisations or anything else.
Xi Jinping's anti-corruption drive, which has seen major officials prosecuted for the first time since, perhaps, the infighting after Mao's demise, could perhaps lead to Communist divisions, but I don't know the political scene very well.
It's also worth considering how proud the Chinese are of their success and ongoing growth (understandably).
If this is honestly the best that Remain have got in terms of tangible benefits of the EU then they are in serious trouble. I would be surprised if the roaming charges moved even a single vote. This is literally a "nobody cares" issue.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years.
The statement that the US is in terminal decline as a global power has certainly been around for years. One day it will be true.
Btw you're not a professional historian yourself are you?
I have an undergraduate degree in the subject. No I'm not a professional.
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
If we didn't learn lessons from the past and apply them to the future, where on earth would we be? Everything is cyclical. Humans are humans. There is nothing new under the sun. If people understood that fact, the world would be a better and happier place.
I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box
Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.
Indeed. But Ireland's economy is at the mercy of the multinationals. It doesn't even realise it is shackled. But it would soon realise if it offended the multi-nationals.
PS It won't.
We could adopt the same master/slave posture. We are halfway there already under this government. Personally I prefer freedom, even at a cost.
Ireland has huge levels of emigration. Its standard of living is below the EU average.
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
Can I suggest you read Karl Popper's The Poverty of Historicism?
Really: your post is very peculiar. The United States has gone through periods in its history when it has been very expansionist and engaged with the outside world - entering into wars in the Philippines, Mexico, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have gone through periods when the opposite is true. You might have made the same forecast in 1975 with the same degree of certainty.
And regarding debt: I'm not sure it's as simple as that. China has a massive shadow banking system, for example. Germany and Italy have very low levels of domestic debt. Should I suddenly think of Italy as the next economic powerhouse because it doesn't have "a vast bubble of debt"?
Parallel-Universes and such-like: Does anyone know how many tangiable assets exist in Hong-Kong? Scenario:
Chinese-banks are crushed as the CCP transfer dodgy-loans to the state-sector (whislt calling on state-finaced banks to fund said transfers). $2-trillion reserves are consumed so China attempts to 'appropriate' Hong-Kong reserves.
How quickly can said assets be moved to Singapore, Dubai or London...?
If this is honestly the best that Remain have got in terms of tangible benefits of the EU then they are in serious trouble. I would be surprised if the roaming charges moved even a single vote. This is literally a "nobody cares" issue.
Come on Max, don't be so emotional. Both sides have stupid arguments that they use from time-to-time.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
Best read-up on the concerns in China young-man. You are paralleling another universe methinks...!
Oh, they have HUGE problems. But they can afford for a whole town to blow up and the wheels just keep turning. Did the American civil war halt the advance of the USA?
No, although if the South had won or the Mid-West seceded then it might have.
I do basically agree with you, though, that the rise of China is based on fundamentals that won't go away.
I don't know much about China - but culturally they're extremely cohesive in ways that almost everywhere else has rejected. IIRC the Chinese have many different languages - whilst the USSR had a mainly Russian speaking one.
Now, we've oodles of capitalism in China - whilst still run by Communists. If anyone can explain that dissonance to me - I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Mortimer, there's a Chinese saying: The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide.
China is immensely resilient but it has historically fluctuated between division/weakness and unity/strength. The Communists won't have dominion forever, and when they fail it'll be interesting to see how the transition goes.
I'm not sure there's a real comparison with any other country. Worth also noting the Chinese situation could affect that of North Korea, as well as the South China Sea, islands disputed with Japan, etc.
Anyway, the Communists won't collapse tomorrow, but if we're talking about long term forecasts, political instability and even division (whether wholesale splits or bits [Tibet, for example]) ought to be considered.
The leaders in China are appointed by previous leaders on the basis of their ability and commitment to the model - just like top managers in multi-nationals. There is no democracy but workers councils and pseudo democratic structures allow the airing of grievances in both cases.
China has immense power of patronage because of its resources. It can even fund nuclear power in the UK, just like multinational Ferrovial (major shareholder of Heathrow Airport) can fund a multibillion third runway. In both cases, they will price gouge customers to reward their funds.
China has hit on the most successful current business model - the multinational. It used to be the Catholic Church.
I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box
Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.
Indeed. But Ireland's economy is at the mercy of the multinationals. It doesn't even realise it is shackled. But it would soon realise if it offended the multi-nationals.
PS It won't.
We could adopt the same master/slave posture. We are halfway there already under this government. Personally I prefer freedom, even at a cost.
Ireland has huge levels of emigration. Its standard of living is below the EU average.
The multinationals that use Ireland as a tax base are not creating large numbers of well paid jobs.
IP holding companies aren't exactly labour intensive! It was one thing for Ireland to say, come here and pay less tax for your earnings, but the reality is that Ireland have been letting these multinational companies get off paying any kind of tax with dodgy sweetheart deals and they don't even get any jobs out of it. I know that they are trying to play the long game, but this seems more like a failure.
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
''China has hit on the most successful current business model - the multinational. It used to be the Catholic Church. ''
1. Prices can only be gouged where the market is anti-competitive. 2. Even in China, the people pyramid is starting to invert and workers are becoming more scarce. The multinationals will have to start paying up.
I don't know much about China - but culturally they're extremely cohesive in ways that almost everywhere else has rejected. IIRC the Chinese have many different languages - whilst the USSR had a mainly Russian speaking one.
Now, we've oodles of capitalism in China - whilst still run by Communists. If anyone can explain that dissonance to me - I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Mortimer, there's a Chinese saying: The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide.
China is immensely resilient but it has historically fluctuated between division/weakness and unity/strength. The Communists won't have dominion forever, and when they fail it'll be interesting to see how the transition goes.
I'm not sure there's a real comparison with any other country. Worth also noting the Chinese situation could affect that of North Korea, as well as the South China Sea, islands disputed with Japan, etc.
Anyway, the Communists won't collapse tomorrow, but if we're talking about long term forecasts, political instability and even division (whether wholesale splits or bits [Tibet, for example]) ought to be considered.
The leaders in China are appointed by previous leaders on the basis of their ability and commitment to the model - just like top managers in multi-nationals. There is no democracy but workers councils and pseudo democratic structures allow the airing of grievances in both cases.
China has immense power of patronage because of its resources. It can even fund nuclear power in the UK, just like multinational Ferrovial (major shareholder of Heathrow Airport) can fund a multibillion third runway. In both cases, they will price gouge customers to reward their funds.
China has hit on the most successful current business model - the multinational. It used to be the Catholic Church.
Big Chinese companies are significantly constrained outside China by their lack of brand power and comparatively poor records in innovation. There's little sign of that changing.
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
If we didn't learn lessons from the past and apply them to the future, where on earth would we be? Everything is cyclical. Humans are humans. There is nothing new under the sun. If people understood that fact, the world would be a better and happier place.
If I had written anything similar in my historiography papers, I would have been laughed out of my college. It is an argument, but it is one more suited to sociology than history.
If this is honestly the best that Remain have got in terms of tangible benefits of the EU then they are in serious trouble. I would be surprised if the roaming charges moved even a single vote. This is literally a "nobody cares" issue.
Come on Max, don't be so emotional. Both sides have stupid arguments that they use from time-to-time.
I did the BSE poll for Populus and this was one of their central arguments. I wish I had the sense to take screenshots of all the pages because the point that they had which worked was "I would vote to remain so that Nigel Farage doesn't get what he wants". Everything else was just a rehash of isolationism, 3m jobs and the nebulous concept of "influence".
On-topic, isn't the puzzling question why UKIP did oppose this? Regardless of the referendum, why would an insurgent party not side with the consumer? Their whole schtick is that they're on the side the little guy.
I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box
Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.
Indeed. But Ireland's economy is at the mercy of the multinationals. It doesn't even realise it is shackled. But it would soon realise if it offended the multi-nationals.
PS It won't.
We could adopt the same master/slave posture. We are halfway there already under this government. Personally I prefer freedom, even at a cost.
What sort of policies do you have in mind? Some form of autarky?
On the contrary. Self sufficiency on the scale of the UK with its population density and reliance on imported food and energy would be very difficult.
What is need is a banding together of like minded countries to level the playing field with multinationals. Something like the EU, (or the G7 or G20). The problem is that the multinationals can get inside the leadership of these entities, eg with TTIP. Eternal viligance, political activism, transparency - these are what are need. Not autarky.
PS I spent my whole career working for a large multinational, a lot of the time in the international HQ.
''Big Chinese companies are significantly constrained outside China by their lack of brand power and comparatively poor records in innovation. There's little sign of that changing.''
Absolutely. In the 1970s and 1980s Japanese banks headed for London to set up offices bearing chequebooks.
I've waited for the Chinese to do the same on a much bigger scale - in vain!
Ms Plato posts a Telegraph article regarding "British Invasions". My memory may be getting feeble but I think a couple of HMS Ark-Royal's Buccanneers may have invaded Guatemalan* airspace in the 'Seventies....
I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box
Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.
Indeed. But Ireland's economy is at the mercy of the multinationals. It doesn't even realise it is shackled. But it would soon realise if it offended the multi-nationals.
PS It won't.
We could adopt the same master/slave posture. We are halfway there already under this government. Personally I prefer freedom, even at a cost.
Ireland has huge levels of emigration. Its standard of living is below the EU average.
The multinationals that use Ireland as a tax base are not creating large numbers of well paid jobs.
IP holding companies aren't exactly labour intensive! It was one thing for Ireland to say, come here and pay less tax for your earnings, but the reality is that Ireland have been letting these multinational companies get off paying any kind of tax with dodgy sweetheart deals and they don't even get any jobs out of it. I know that they are trying to play the long game, but this seems more like a failure.
Yep - the big multinationals like the tax breaks but can extricate themselves very quickly if they can get better deals elsewhere. And at some stage the EU is going to find a way to effectively attack those Irish tax rates.
IP holding companies aren't exactly labour intensive! It was one thing for Ireland to say, come here and pay less tax for your earnings, but the reality is that Ireland have been letting these multinational companies get off paying any kind of tax with dodgy sweetheart deals and they don't even get any jobs out of it. I know that they are trying to play the long game, but this seems more like a failure.
There are certain parts of the Irish economic model that have worked well: it - along with Switzerland - is a major manufacturer of pharmaceuticals; Intel has built a massive chip fabrication plant outside Dublin; financial services firms have built back offices on the banks of the Liffey.
I don't know much about China - but culturally they're extremely cohesive in ways that almost everywhere else has rejected. IIRC the Chinese have many different languages - whilst the USSR had a mainly Russian speaking one.
Now, we've oodles of capitalism in China - whilst still run by Communists. If anyone can explain that dissonance to me - I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Mortimer, there's a Chinese saying: The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide.
China is immensely resilient but it has historically fluctuated between division/weakness and unity/strength. The Communists won't have dominion forever, and when they fail it'll be interesting to see how the transition goes.
I'm not sure there's a real comparison with any other country. Worth also noting the Chinese situation could affect that of North Korea, as well as the South China Sea, islands disputed with Japan, etc.
Anyway, the Communists won't collapse tomorrow, but if we're talking about long term forecasts, political instability and even division (whether wholesale splits or bits [Tibet, for example]) ought to be considered.
The leaders in China are appointed by previous leaders on the basis of their ability and commitment to the model - just like top managers in multi-nationals. There is no democracy but workers councils and pseudo democratic structures allow the airing of grievances in both cases.
China has immense power of patronage because of its resources. It can even fund nuclear power in the UK, just like multinational Ferrovial (major shareholder of Heathrow Airport) can fund a multibillion third runway. In both cases, they will price gouge customers to reward their funds.
China has hit on the most successful current business model - the multinational. It used to be the Catholic Church.
Big Chinese companies are significantly constrained outside China by their lack of brand power and comparatively poor records in innovation. There's little sign of that changing.
Things are moving against them as well, Japanese companies are fed up of IP theft, Panasonic, Sony and a few others are onshoring a lot of jobs or going to SE Asia for cheap labour. American companies are not far behind, the Koreans have Kaesong. I don't know where it leaves China if they can't steal and copy their way to the top.
On-topic, isn't the puzzling question why UKIP did oppose this? Regardless of the referendum, why would an insurgent party not side with the consumer? Their whole schtick is that they're on the side the little guy.
Can't see its that hard, its the EU meddling so they oppose it. This is a classic case for subsidiarity, I can't see a reason why our national government can't impose the proposed limits on UK based mobile companies, unless the EU rules prevent it, in which case the question answers itself.
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
If we didn't learn lessons from the past and apply them to the future, where on earth would we be? Everything is cyclical. Humans are humans. There is nothing new under the sun. If people understood that fact, the world would be a better and happier place.
If I had written anything similar in my historiography papers, I would have been laughed out of my college. It is an argument, but it is one more suited to sociology than history.
I don't know much about China - but culturally they're extremely cohesive in ways that almost everywhere else has rejected. IIRC the Chinese have many different languages - whilst the USSR had a mainly Russian speaking one.
Now, we've oodles of capitalism in China - whilst still run by Communists. If anyone can explain that dissonance to me - I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Mortimer, there's a Chinese saying: The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide.
China is immensely resilient but it has historically fluctuated between division/weakness and unity/strength. The Communists won't have dominion forever, and when they fail it'll be interesting to see how the transition goes.
I'm not sure there's a real comparison with any other country. Worth also noting the Chinese situation could affect that of North Korea, as well as the South China Sea, islands disputed with Japan, etc.
Anyway, the Communists won't collapse tomorrow, but if we're talking about long term forecasts, political instability and even division (whether wholesale splits or bits [Tibet, for example]) ought to be considered.
The leaders in China are appointed by previous leaders on the basis of their ability and commitment to the model - just like top managers in multi-nationals. There is no democracy but workers councils and pseudo democratic structures allow the airing of grievances in both cases.
China has immense power of patronage because of its resources. It can even fund nuclear power in the UK, just like multinational Ferrovial (major shareholder of Heathrow Airport) can fund a multibillion third runway. In both cases, they will price gouge customers to reward their funds.
China has hit on the most successful current business model - the multinational. It used to be the Catholic Church.
Big Chinese companies are significantly constrained outside China by their lack of brand power and comparatively poor records in innovation. There's little sign of that changing.
Things are moving against them as well, Japanese companies are fed up of IP theft, Panasonic, Sony and a few others are onshoring a lot of jobs or going to SE Asia for cheap labour. American companies are not far behind, the Koreans have Kaesong. I don't know where it leaves China if they can't steal and copy their way to the top.
A lot of Chinese companies are finding it hard to enter new markets because they immediately come under patent attack. It's a real problem for them.
I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box
Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.
Indeed. But Ireland's economy is at the mercy of the multinationals. It doesn't even realise it is shackled. But it would soon realise if it offended the multi-nationals.
PS It won't.
We could adopt the same master/slave posture. We are halfway there already under this government. Personally I prefer freedom, even at a cost.
Ireland has huge levels of emigration. Its standard of living is below the EU average.
The multinationals that use Ireland as a tax base are not creating large numbers of well paid jobs.
IP holding companies aren't exactly labour intensive! It was one thing for Ireland to say, come here and pay less tax for your earnings, but the reality is that Ireland have been letting these multinational companies get off paying any kind of tax with dodgy sweetheart deals and they don't even get any jobs out of it. I know that they are trying to play the long game, but this seems more like a failure.
Yep - the big multinationals like the tax breaks but can extricate themselves very quickly if they can get better deals elsewhere. And at some stage the EU is going to find a way to effectively attack those Irish tax rates.
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
If we didn't learn lessons from the past and apply them to the future, where on earth would we be? Everything is cyclical. Humans are humans. There is nothing new under the sun. If people understood that fact, the world would be a better and happier place.
If I had written anything similar in my historiography papers, I would have been laughed out of my college. It is an argument, but it is one more suited to sociology than history.
I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box
Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.
Indeed. But Ireland's economy is at the mercy of the multinationals. It doesn't even realise it is shackled. But it would soon realise if it offended the multi-nationals.
PS It won't.
We could adopt the same master/slave posture. We are halfway there already under this government. Personally I prefer freedom, even at a cost.
What sort of policies do you have in mind? Some form of autarky?
On the contrary. Self sufficiency on the scale of the UK with its population density and reliance on imported food and energy would be very difficult.
What is need is a banding together of like minded countries to level the playing field with multinationals. Something like the EU, (or the G7 or G20). The problem is that the multinationals can get inside the leadership of these entities, eg with TTIP. Eternal viligance, political activism, transparency - these are what are need. Not autarky.
PS I spent my whole career working for a large multinational, a lot of the time in the international HQ.
Thanks for the reply. I see where you're coming from and in principle I agree with you. (We might disagree over the details, but that's politics.)
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
snip
If I had written anything similar in my historiography papers, I would have been laughed out of my college. It is an argument, but it is one more suited to sociology than history.
Things are moving against them as well, Japanese companies are fed up of IP theft, Panasonic, Sony and a few others are onshoring a lot of jobs or going to SE Asia for cheap labour. American companies are not far behind, the Koreans have Kaesong. I don't know where it leaves China if they can't steal and copy their way to the top.
IME IP theft is also a significant and troubling issue *between* Chinese companies. From my limited vision of it things are improving, but too many Chinese engineers and managers don't fundamentally understand the reasons for IP.
Until their own IP is stolen, that is. As long as it is cheaper to steal IP than develop their own, they will do so. Unfortunately for them, the risks of having it down to them increases as they become more innovative, and they need to do that to be leading rather than following.
The situation is probably not helped by massive and somewhat invisible corporations, often ultimately owned by figures in the Chinese army, owning lots of the companies.
I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box
Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.
Indeed. But Ireland's economy is at the mercy of the multinationals. It doesn't even realise it is shackled. But it would soon realise if it offended the multi-nationals.
PS It won't.
We could adopt the same master/slave posture. We are halfway there already under this government. Personally I prefer freedom, even at a cost.
Ireland has huge levels of emigration. Its standard of living is below the EU average.
The multinationals that use Ireland as a tax base are not creating large numbers of well paid jobs.
IP holding companies aren't exactly labour intensive! It was one thing for Ireland to say, come here and pay less tax for your earnings, but the reality is that Ireland have been letting these multinational companies get off paying any kind of tax with dodgy sweetheart deals and they don't even get any jobs out of it. I know that they are trying to play the long game, but this seems more like a failure.
Yep - the big multinationals like the tax breaks but can extricate themselves very quickly if they can get better deals elsewhere. And at some stage the EU is going to find a way to effectively attack those Irish tax rates.
As MaxPB says, it's the IP-related tax regime that the big multinationals really like about Ireland.
"Mr Mahmood said he prayed at the same mosque as Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino on 2 December but he "did not know him personally", would not have recognised him and could not recall ever speaking to him." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35171175
I am very much pro-consumer and think that governments should do much more to keep multi-nationals in their box
Which is all very well in theory, but the thing about multi-nationals is that they can choose to base themselves anywhere. So unilateral action is risky.
Indeed. But Ireland's economy is at the mercy of the multinationals. It doesn't even realise it is shackled. But it would soon realise if it offended the multi-nationals.
PS It won't.
We could adopt the same master/slave posture. We are halfway there already under this government. Personally I prefer freedom, even at a cost.
Ireland has huge levels of emigration. Its standard of living is below the EU average.
The multinationals that use Ireland as a tax base are not creating large numbers of well paid jobs.
IP holding companies aren't exactly labour intensive! It was one thing for Ireland to say, come here and pay less tax for your earnings, but the reality is that Ireland have been letting these multinational companies get off paying any kind of tax with dodgy sweetheart deals and they don't even get any jobs out of it. I know that they are trying to play the long game, but this seems more like a failure.
Yep - the big multinationals like the tax breaks but can extricate themselves very quickly if they can get better deals elsewhere. And at some stage the EU is going to find a way to effectively attack those Irish tax rates.
Perhaps best to scrap corporation tax entirely. Move it over to employee, sales, and transaction taxes.
If you do business in a country, then you pay tax there. No dodging will help.
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, you would realise the unmistakable signs of late-imperial putrefaction have been around the US for years. Their economy (like ours sadly) is a vast bubble of debt waiting to be burst when confidence erodes, and the dollar ceases to be the world's trading currency as the pound did before it. There is no way back, and the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
No, the stress in "historian" is on the "tor", not the "ist". hiss-TOR-ee-an.
Yes, I suppose if you drop the "h" then "an-iss-tor-ee-an" is correct in speech. But it looks very wrong in writing.
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
Can I suggest you read Karl Popper's The Poverty of Historicism?
Really: your post is very peculiar. The United States has gone through periods in its history when it has been very expansionist and engaged with the outside world - entering into wars in the Philippines, Mexico, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have gone through periods when the opposite is true. You might have made the same forecast in 1975 with the same degree of certainty.
And regarding debt: I'm not sure it's as simple as that. China has a massive shadow banking system, for example. Germany and Italy have very low levels of domestic debt. Should I suddenly think of Italy as the next economic powerhouse because it doesn't have "a vast bubble of debt"?
I don't think I could agree with you there. I wouldn't say there have been phases, I would say there's a gradual trajectory from being a very insular power based on a strong domestic economy (the opposite of Britain that as a small island nation always had to trade with the world) to increasing engagement/conflict/cementing of interests with outside powers, covert and overt. Increasing use of diplomatic pressure and where that fails military force is a feature of all empires.
The point about debt is surely a simple one - we use a currency based on the ability of the issuing country to theoretically pay it back. If the country is broke, why keep using its currency to settle international business? And if it stops being used, another will step into its place. China is rapaciously buying gold, so the Yuan will be backed by gold ready to step into the dollars shoes.
In the 1970s: "Britain's shit, look how great Europe is, join them!" In the 1980s: "Europe's falling behind, Japan is in the ascendent, we should have a free trade deal with them instead!" In the 2000s: "The BRICs are the future. Look at Brazil and China's growth rate. Let's join with them!"
I do wonder if we all have a tendency to over-extrapolate recent trends - we were wrong to think that the EU countries had any kind of economy miracle in the 1970s, ditto Japan in the 1990s; ditto Brazil in the 2000s; and probably ditto China now.
Any notion that China is not going to outstrip the US as the world's leading economy is wishful thinking. It's not an economic miracle; its simply numbers. We can deny it or prepare for it.
Back in 1990, the number one best selling book on the New York Times bestseller list was "The Sun Always Rises in the East" about the superiority of the Japanese economic model, and how it was inevtiable that the US would be eclipsed before the the Year 2000.
China's working age population peaks in 2017. The US will continue to grow, as it sucks in immigrants and has a TFR close to replacement.
China may - or may not - pass the US as the world's dominant economic power. The idea that there is anything inevitable about it is laughable.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, y...d the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
No, the stress in "historian" is on the "tor", not the "ist". hiss-TOR-ee-an.
Yes, I suppose if you drop the "h" then "an-iss-tor-ee-an" is correct in speech. But it looks very wrong in writing.
You think? I think it grates when preceded by an 'a' -
The emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist', and that is what matters here.
"Would you be happier inside the EU with a UKIP/Tory Eurosceptic Government, or outside it with a Corbynesque Govt?"
The first example is pretty much what the Scots have I suppose
The 1st. Every day and twice on a Sunday. It's about people and their will, and if we had a proper Tory Eurosceptic Government (and I mean really committed, not getting a call from Obama and suddenly thinking this EU wheeze is alright), we would either find a satisfactory way to live within the EU, or leave quick sticks. It's not just the pro-European nature of our current Government, it's the PR they do for the EU by concealing the full facts from the people. A few months of a truly eurosceptic Government and this mask would fall completely.
I support Leave because it's a way for the people to impose their democratic view on the current Government. Not because I think it's all going to be great.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, y...d the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
No, the stress in "historian" is on the "tor", not the "ist". hiss-TOR-ee-an.
Yes, I suppose if you drop the "h" then "an-iss-tor-ee-an" is correct in speech. But it looks very wrong in writing.
You think? I think it grates when preceded by an 'a' -
The emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist', and that is what matters here.
"ist" is not in the first syllable. The first syllable is "his".
The H is there - you can't wish it away. If you pronounce "an historian" carefully, you stumble over the transition between the words just as much as you do if you try to say "an banana". In speech you can elide the H away, but you can't in writing.
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, y...d the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
No, the stress in "historian" is on the "tor", not the "ist". hiss-TOR-ee-an.
Yes, I suppose if you drop the "h" then "an-iss-tor-ee-an" is correct in speech. But it looks very wrong in writing.
You think? I think it grates when preceded by an 'a' -
The emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist', and that is what matters here.
"ist" is not in the first syllable. The first syllable is "his".
The H is there - you can't wish it away. If you pronounce "an historian" carefully, you stumble over the transition between the words just as much as you do if you try to say "an banana". In speech you can elide the H away, but you can't in writing.
Well, all historians I know would disagree with you. They would both write and say an historian; as has been convention for several centuries.
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
"Would you be happier inside the EU with a UKIP/Tory Eurosceptic Government, or outside it with a Corbynesque Govt?"
The first example is pretty much what the Scots have I suppose
If we vote to stay, we will be stuck in an ever closer union for ever.
At least outside the EU we would know that the Corbyn government was time-limited and there would be a chance to kick it out at the next election.
As someone who was only one when we last had an EEC/EU referendum, it would be very useful (although probably not to 'remain') to see how our relationship with the EU had evolved over the four decades.
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
"Would you be happier inside the EU with a UKIP/Tory Eurosceptic Government, or outside it with a Corbynesque Govt?"
The first example is pretty much what the Scots have I suppose
If we vote to stay, we will be stuck in an ever closer union for ever.
At least outside the EU we would know that the Corbyn government was time-limited and there would be a chance to kick it out at the next election.
As someone who was only one when we last had an EEC/EU referendum, it would be very useful (although probably not to 'remain') to see how our relationship with the EU had evolved over the four decades.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, y...d the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
No, the stress in "historian" is on the "tor", not the "ist". hiss-TOR-ee-an.
Yes, I suppose if you drop the "h" then "an-iss-tor-ee-an" is correct in speech. But it looks very wrong in writing.
You think? I think it grates when preceded by an 'a' -
The emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist', and that is what matters here.
"ist" is not in the first syllable. The first syllable is "his".
The H is there - you can't wish it away. If you pronounce "an historian" carefully, you stumble over the transition between the words just as much as you do if you try to say "an banana". In speech you can elide the H away, but you can't in writing.
Well, all historians I know would disagree with you. They would both write and say an historian; as has been convention for several centuries.
They're living in the past. "An historian" and "an historic" grate, but I wouldn't correct someone who used them. Unless they "corrected" someone who used the modern form. I'll refer you to Fowler, and leave it there I think.
Assume then you feel the same about Greenies, Respect, SWP, TUSC, CPGB and the rest making hay of Labour's idiotic entryist scheme. At least the Tories aren't determined to change Labour a la Nellist and Hatton.
I have asked Santa for supplies of popcorn in anticipation of a cracking 2016 courtesy of Corbyn and Co. Telegraph reports rumours of a reshuffle in the new year.
"Mr Mahmood said he prayed at the same mosque as Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino on 2 December but he "did not know him personally", would not have recognised him and could not recall ever speaking to him." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35171175
That Mr Mahmood is already in America and is a cousin of the ones barred from entry. (As an aside, the BBC really ought to have translated this into English, "runs an auto repair shop in San Bernardino," rather than mindlessly transcribing the local press.)
It all seems a tad unsatisfactory. If there are genuine grounds for belief these people are terrorists then a travel ban is not enough; if they are not then it is overkill.
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
"Would you be happier inside the EU with a UKIP/Tory Eurosceptic Government, or outside it with a Corbynesque Govt?"
The first example is pretty much what the Scots have I suppose
If we vote to stay, we will be stuck in an ever closer union for ever.
At least outside the EU we would know that the Corbyn government was time-limited and there would be a chance to kick it out at the next election.
As someone who was only one when we last had an EEC/EU referendum, it would be very useful (although probably not to 'remain') to see how our relationship with the EU had evolved over the four decades.
YouTube "This Sceptic Isle"
I've watched that, thanks. I'd rather something in textual than spoken form (if only so I could write my own notes), and some contrary views from the other side might also be nice.
I have asked Santa for supplies of popcorn in anticipation of a cracking 2016 courtesy of Corbyn and Co. Telegraph reports rumours of a reshuffle in the new year.
I have asked Santa for supplies of popcorn in anticipation of a cracking 2016 courtesy of Corbyn and Co. Telegraph reports rumours of a reshuffle in the new year.
"Mr Mahmood said he prayed at the same mosque as Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino on 2 December but he "did not know him personally", would not have recognised him and could not recall ever speaking to him." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35171175
That Mr Mahmood is already in America and is a cousin of the ones barred from entry. (As an aside, the BBC really ought to have translated this into English, "runs an auto repair shop in San Bernardino," rather than mindlessly transcribing the local press.)
It all seems a tad unsatisfactory. If there are genuine grounds for belief these people are terrorists then a travel ban is not enough; if they are not then it is overkill.
Your last statement is utter nonsense. There are plenty of people on watchlists that the authorities can't or don't want to put on trial for being a [suspected] terrorist or extremist, but neither do they want them travelling.
Remember, the guys who carried out the attacks in Paris traveled extensively in the year leading up to the event.
We only have one side of the story in this case and that one side has some rather large holes in it. The Americans have the right to admit who they like, I know white Christian UK citizens, with no criminal records, being rejected from entering.
I have asked Santa for supplies of popcorn in anticipation of a cracking 2016 courtesy of Corbyn and Co. Telegraph reports rumours of a reshuffle in the new year.
That Mr Mahmood is already in America and is a cousin of the ones barred from entry. (As an aside, the BBC really ought to have translated this into English, "runs an auto repair shop in San Bernardino," rather than mindlessly transcribing the local press.)
It all seems a tad unsatisfactory. If there are genuine grounds for belief these people are terrorists then a travel ban is not enough; if they are not then it is overkill.
Ah yes, should have read more carefully. I got a bit confused as they seem to share a name.
Perhaps I should f*ck off and join the Tories. I might actually.
Sir Bernard was press Secretary to Barbara Castle and Tony Benn in his civil service days before becoming Margaret Thatcher's press secretary and used to be a member of the Labour Party before he joined the civil service
The report prepared by officials from the Treasury is truly depressing. We may never have joined the EEC/EU if the Eurofanatics were honest with us from the start.
It should be noted at the outset that the plan for economic and monetary union (EMU) has revolutionary long-term implications, both economic and political. It could imply the ultimate creation of a European federal state with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic life would ultimately be handed over to the central, federal authorities.
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, y...d the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
No, the stress in "historian" is on the "tor", not the "ist". hiss-TOR-ee-an.
Yes, I suppose if you drop the "h" then "an-iss-tor-ee-an" is correct in speech. But it looks very wrong in writing.
You think? I think it grates when preceded by an 'a' -
The emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist', and that is what matters here.
"ist" is not in the first syllable. The first syllable is "his".
The H is there - you can't wish it away. If you pronounce "an historian" carefully, you stumble over the transition between the words just as much as you do if you try to say "an banana". In speech you can elide the H away, but you can't in writing.
Well, all historians I know would disagree with you. They would both write and say an historian; as has been convention for several centuries.
More stupid rubbish. If you want to write ''an 'istorian'', in an attempt to mimic glottal slurring or slang speech, then go ahead and do it but don't insult our intelligence otherwise.
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
All I can say is the college of fine art in Romania must be an odd place where they only teach their students to make the same identical sand sculpture ;-)
Plato.. maybe we should do what the Yanks have done..kick em out... if they don't like it then eff off..I think the tolerance level in the normally placid UK is rapidly reaching tipping level..
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, y...d the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
No, the stress in "historian" is on the "tor", not the "ist". hiss-TOR-ee-an.
Yes, I suppose if you drop the "h" then "an-iss-tor-ee-an" is correct in speech. But it looks very wrong in writing.
You think? I think it grates when preceded by an 'a' -
The emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist', and that is what matters here.
"ist" is not in the first syllable. The first syllable is "his".
The H is there - you can't wish it away. If you pronounce "an historian" carefully, you stumble over the transition between the words just as much as you do if you try to say "an banana". In speech you can elide the H away, but you can't in writing.
Well, all historians I know would disagree with you. They would both write and say an historian; as has been convention for several centuries.
They're living in the past. "An historian" and "an historic" grate, but I wouldn't correct someone who used them. Unless they "corrected" someone who used the modern form. I'll refer you to Fowler, and leave it there I think.
I wouldn't usually correct either - but when someone claims to be 'a historian' then spouts a load of ahistorical rubbish, it seems apposite :-)))
We'll agree to disagree - Fowler; what was his period, again?
You're not a historian, so I suppose your attitude is understandable. If you understood the concepts, y...d the current push for military domination (a feature of all declining empires) is a last ditch attempt to avert historical inevitability.
An historian would understand that history is the study of the past - not the study of the past and hypothetical near future.
When you go on holiday, do you stay at an hotel?
Historian begins with a weak first consonant, the emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist' - it is therefore commonly preceeded by 'an'.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
No, the stress in "historian" is on the "tor", not the "ist". hiss-TOR-ee-an.
Yes, I suppose if you drop the "h" then "an-iss-tor-ee-an" is correct in speech. But it looks very wrong in writing.
You think? I think it grates when preceded by an 'a' -
The emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist', and that is what matters here.
"ist" is not in the first syllable. The first syllable is "his".
The H is there - you can't wish it away. If you pronounce "an historian" carefully, you stumble over the transition between the words just as much as you do if you try to say "an banana". In speech you can elide the H away, but you can't in writing.
Well, all historians I know would disagree with you. They would both write and say an historian; as has been convention for several centuries.
More stupid rubbish. If you want to write ''an 'istorian'', in an attempt to mimic glottal slurring or slang speech, then go ahead and do it but don't insult our intelligence otherwise.
It is not slang. Apologies if correctitude offends.
Plato.. maybe we should do what the Yanks have done..kick em out... if they don't like it then eff off..I think the tolerance level in the normally placid UK is rapidly reaching tipping level..
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
"Would you be happier inside the EU with a UKIP/Tory Eurosceptic Government, or outside it with a Corbynesque Govt?"
The first example is pretty much what the Scots have I suppose
If we vote to stay, we will be stuck in an ever closer union for ever.
At least outside the EU we would know that the Corbyn government was time-limited and there would be a chance to kick it out at the next election.
As someone who was only one when we last had an EEC/EU referendum, it would be very useful (although probably not to 'remain') to see how our relationship with the EU had evolved over the four decades.
YouTube "This Sceptic Isle"
I've watched that, thanks. I'd rather something in textual than spoken form (if only so I could write my own notes), and some contrary views from the other side might also be nice.
Get the transcript of John Redwood's Brexit themed Christmas Fairy Tale?
Perhaps I should f*ck off and join the Tories. I might actually.
Sir Bernard was press Secretary to Barbara Castle and Tony Benn in his civil service days before becoming Margaret Thatcher's press secretary and used to be a member of the Labour Party before he joined the civil service
But Ingham came across as very partisan- in no sense did he appear a neutral civil servant as Thatcher's Press Secretary - much more like Alastair Campbell.
Miss Plato, I think it's just Brave New World. The Chinese Government has delivered immense economic growth, so people aren't fussed (generally) about the lack of political freedom.
....
It's also worth considering how proud the Chinese are of their success and ongoing growth (understandably).
Well anything is better than the 30 million dead under the Cultural Revolution.
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
"Would you be happier inside the EU with a UKIP/Tory Eurosceptic Government, or outside it with a Corbynesque Govt?"
The first example is pretty much what the Scots have I suppose
If we vote to stay, we will be stuck in an ever closer union for ever.
At least outside the EU we would know that the Corbyn government was time-limited and there would be a chance to kick it out at the next election.
As someone who was only one when we last had an EEC/EU referendum, it would be very useful (although probably not to 'remain') to see how our relationship with the EU had evolved over the four decades.
YouTube "This Sceptic Isle"
I've watched that, thanks. I'd rather something in textual than spoken form (if only so I could write my own notes), and some contrary views from the other side might also be nice.
Get the transcript of John Redwood's Brexit themed Christmas Fairy Tale?
So contrary views are not allowed? The Great Hitchen's views should be unsullied?
Perhaps I should f*ck off and join the Tories. I might actually.
Sir Bernard was press Secretary to Barbara Castle and Tony Benn in his civil service days before becoming Margaret Thatcher's press secretary and used to be a member of the Labour Party before he joined the civil service
But Ingham came across as very partisan- in no sense did he appear a neutral civil servant as Thatcher's Press Secretary - much more like Alastair Campbell.
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
"Would you be happier inside the EU with a UKIP/Tory Eurosceptic Government, or outside it with a Corbynesque Govt?"
The first example is pretty much what the Scots have I suppose
If we vote to stay, we will be stuck in an ever closer union for ever.
At least outside the EU we would know that the Corbyn government was time-limited and there would be a chance to kick it out at the next election.
As someone who was only one when we last had an EEC/EU referendum, it would be very useful (although probably not to 'remain') to see how our relationship with the EU had evolved over the four decades.
YouTube "This Sceptic Isle"
I've watched that, thanks. I'd rather something in textual than spoken form (if only so I could write my own notes), and some contrary views from the other side might also be nice.
Get the transcript of John Redwood's Brexit themed Christmas Fairy Tale?
So contrary views are not allowed? The Great Hitchen's views should be unsullied?
I don't get what you are saying, I was trying to help. You asked for something that helped understand how our relationship with the EU has evolved, and the programme I suggested does that
John Redwood has done a Christmas fairy tale today about how our membership of the EU has evolved, I was jokingly suggesting you read that
Perhaps I should f*ck off and join the Tories. I might actually.
Sir Bernard was press Secretary to Barbara Castle and Tony Benn in his civil service days before becoming Margaret Thatcher's press secretary and used to be a member of the Labour Party before he joined the civil service
But Ingham came across as very partisan- in no sense did he appear a neutral civil servant as Thatcher's Press Secretary - much more like Alastair Campbell.
But I don't claim to be an impartial civil servant!
I have also made it clear that there are some Tories I had far more time for than New Labour - -eg - Harold Macmillan - RA Butler - Iain Macleod - Edward Boyle - even Ted Heath. On the other hand Tories such as the Member for Telford are very likely to have an Arbeit Macht Frei attitude to workers - indeed it is implicit in how she has treated her own staff.
The report prepared by officials from the Treasury is truly depressing. We may never have joined the EEC/EU if the Eurofanatics were honest with us from the start.
It should be noted at the outset that the plan for economic and monetary union (EMU) has revolutionary long-term implications, both economic and political. It could imply the ultimate creation of a European federal state with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic life would ultimately be handed over to the central, federal authorities.
Its pretty clear that a common currency and interest rates would lead to common tax and thus closer (possibly total) political union as well. Thats why the tories opposed joining the Euro and still do.
Plato.. maybe we should do what the Yanks have done..kick em out... if they don't like it then eff off..I think the tolerance level in the normally placid UK is rapidly reaching tipping level..
If UK laws were applied impartially to all groups, I suspect the reason for many complaints would disaappear
I'd love to see a pro-Leave thread on here. There's a number of us who have a fairly coherent idea of the issues, and don't resort to name calling as a substitute for argument.
"Would you be happier inside the EU with a UKIP/Tory Eurosceptic Government, or outside it with a Corbynesque Govt?"
The first example is pretty much what the Scots have I suppose
If we vote to stay, we will be stuck in an ever closer union for ever.
At least outside the EU we would know that the Corbyn government was time-limited and there would be a chance to kick it out at the next election.
As someone who was only one when we last had an EEC/EU referendum, it would be very useful (although probably not to 'remain') to see how our relationship with the EU had evolved over the four decades.
YouTube "This Sceptic Isle"
I've watched that, thanks. I'd rather something in textual than spoken form (if only so I could write my own notes), and some contrary views from the other side might also be nice.
Get the transcript of John Redwood's Brexit themed Christmas Fairy Tale?
So contrary views are not allowed? The Great Hitchen's views should be unsullied?
I don't get what you are saying, I was trying to help. You asked for something that helped understand how our relationship with the EU has evolved, and the programme I suggested does that
John Redwood has done a Christmas fairy tale today about how our membership of the EU has evolved, I was jokingly suggesting you read that
From a different angle, can I suggest This Blessed Plot by Hugo Young
You damaged your credibility enormously with that quote - and it wasn't a one off. When a poster equates Tories with Nazis several times - well what do you expect?
Perhaps I should f*ck off and join the Tories. I might actually.
Sir Bernard was press Secretary to Barbara Castle and Tony Benn in his civil service days before becoming Margaret Thatcher's press secretary and used to be a member of the Labour Party before he joined the civil service
But Ingham came across as very partisan- in no sense did he appear a neutral civil servant as Thatcher's Press Secretary - much more like Alastair Campbell.
But I don't claim to be an impartial civil servant!
I have also made it clear that there are some Tories I had far more time for than New Labour - -eg - Harold Macmillan - RA Butler - Iain Macleod - Edward Boyle - even Ted Heath. On the other hand Tories such as the Member for Telford are very likely to have an Arbeit Macht Frei attitude to workers - indeed it is implicit in how she has treated her own staff.
If UK laws were applied impartially to all groups, I suspect the reason for many complaints would disaappear
It isn;t just Trump. Judging by articles on Holland, France and the UK recently, there is evidence that official attitudes to islam are hardening a little.
Big Chinese companies are significantly constrained outside China by their lack of brand power and comparatively poor records in innovation. There's little sign of that changing.
China will always be a huge economy - it just may never become a powerful one. Some things are a major worry: 1. Demographics. China is the fastest ageing society and has already peaked for working age population. Growth implies huge productivity gains. How do they achieve that in a rigid statist dictatorship? 2. It has a staggeringly monumental debt load. The growth has been borrowed. With an ever diminishing GDP return on new debt. It's as if they've had Gordon Brown running the show for the last 20 years. Their financial system is not ready to absorb a downturn. 3. It's not cheap to manufacture there any more. Onshoring or wage hunting in cheaper places of all those low end jobs is causing an diabolical employment issue. Graduates can't find work. 4. They ain't pals with the neighbours. 5. And they hate each other. Chinese society is the most brutally competitive, moral free Darwinian jungle. In fact there is little society - just nationhood. I blame the one child policy. 6. The communist mandate to govern has been for a long time ' OK we're a bunch of despot a-holes, but we have lifted you out of poverty so don't riot'. When the inevitable bump in the road comes along with banking failure, high unemployment, etc what will the mandate be? The internal stability of the PRC is not a given.
Comments
The EU argues that the cost of using your mobile phone either at home or abroad should not differ. However, there is no single EU telephony market. Operators who have a network in just one country will have to pay a counterpart in another country for use of their infrastructure. Therefore there will be a difference in costs for using phones at home and abroad. The idea of uniform telephony prices across the EU is a nonsense.
The market was never broken as roaming charges had been falling for many years. The EU is engaging in price control where it is not required. They should divert some of their attention to addressing the EU's real failings instead of pursuing imaginary boogeymen.
If economic growth nose-dived, the situation could rapidly become sub-optimal.
Mind you, the government controls the media, and seeks to control the internet, but it's hard to imagine they can do the latter comprehensively.
There also appears to be a total absence of an alternative, in terms of political parties, religious organisations or anything else.
Xi Jinping's anti-corruption drive, which has seen major officials prosecuted for the first time since, perhaps, the infighting after Mao's demise, could perhaps lead to Communist divisions, but I don't know the political scene very well.
It's also worth considering how proud the Chinese are of their success and ongoing growth (understandably).
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-standard-of-living-below-eu-average-344682.html
The multinationals that use Ireland as a tax base are not creating large numbers of well paid jobs.
Really: your post is very peculiar. The United States has gone through periods in its history when it has been very expansionist and engaged with the outside world - entering into wars in the Philippines, Mexico, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have gone through periods when the opposite is true. You might have made the same forecast in 1975 with the same degree of certainty.
And regarding debt: I'm not sure it's as simple as that. China has a massive shadow banking system, for example. Germany and Italy have very low levels of domestic debt. Should I suddenly think of Italy as the next economic powerhouse because it doesn't have "a vast bubble of debt"?
Parallel-Universes and such-like: Does anyone know how many tangiable assets exist in Hong-Kong? Scenario:
Chinese-banks are crushed as the CCP transfer dodgy-loans to the state-sector (whislt calling on state-finaced banks to fund said transfers). $2-trillion reserves are consumed so China attempts to 'appropriate' Hong-Kong reserves.
How quickly can said assets be moved to Singapore, Dubai or London...?
I do basically agree with you, though, that the rise of China is based on fundamentals that won't go away.
China has immense power of patronage because of its resources. It can even fund nuclear power in the UK, just like multinational Ferrovial (major shareholder of Heathrow Airport) can fund a multibillion third runway. In both cases, they will price gouge customers to reward their funds.
China has hit on the most successful current business model - the multinational. It used to be the Catholic Church.
You can hide tax as much as you like, but if you ain't got workers, you ain't got a company.
At the end of 2015, we saw the first signs of the global labour market tightening. This trend will deepen in 2016.
The impact will be almost completely benign.
The H in hotel is slightly less weak (but not exactly strong). I do tend to say 'an'otel'. For those who pronounce the h more, 'a HO-tel' works fine.
Thing is, while Corbyn is "unelectable" there is, actually, a non-zero probability of him winning and I really don't want that to happen. So...
1. Prices can only be gouged where the market is anti-competitive.
2. Even in China, the people pyramid is starting to invert and workers are becoming more scarce. The multinationals will have to start paying up.
Best £3 of 2015.
What is need is a banding together of like minded countries to level the playing field with multinationals. Something like the EU, (or the G7 or G20). The problem is that the multinationals can get inside the leadership of these entities, eg with TTIP. Eternal viligance, political activism, transparency - these are what are need. Not autarky.
PS I spent my whole career working for a large multinational, a lot of the time in the international HQ.
Absolutely. In the 1970s and 1980s Japanese banks headed for London to set up offices bearing chequebooks.
I've waited for the Chinese to do the same on a much bigger scale - in vain!
* Maybe Mr Lhama can confirm...?
"Would you be happier inside the EU with a UKIP/Tory Eurosceptic Government, or outside it with a Corbynesque Govt?"
The first example is pretty much what the Scots have I suppose
Until their own IP is stolen, that is. As long as it is cheaper to steal IP than develop their own, they will do so. Unfortunately for them, the risks of having it down to them increases as they become more innovative, and they need to do that to be leading rather than following.
The situation is probably not helped by massive and somewhat invisible corporations, often ultimately owned by figures in the Chinese army, owning lots of the companies.
"Mr Mahmood said he prayed at the same mosque as Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino on 2 December but he "did not know him personally", would not have recognised him and could not recall ever speaking to him."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35171175
If you do business in a country, then you pay tax there. No dodging will help.
At least outside the EU we would know that the Corbyn government was time-limited and there would be a chance to kick it out at the next election.
Yes, I suppose if you drop the "h" then "an-iss-tor-ee-an" is correct in speech. But it looks very wrong in writing.
The point about debt is surely a simple one - we use a currency based on the ability of the issuing country to theoretically pay it back. If the country is broke, why keep using its currency to settle international business? And if it stops being used, another will step into its place. China is rapaciously buying gold, so the Yuan will be backed by gold ready to step into the dollars shoes.
The emphasis in the first syllable is on the 'ist', and that is what matters here.
I support Leave because it's a way for the people to impose their democratic view on the current Government. Not because I think it's all going to be great.
The H is there - you can't wish it away. If you pronounce "an historian" carefully, you stumble over the transition between the words just as much as you do if you try to say "an banana". In speech you can elide the H away, but you can't in writing.
Bryant is one of them.
Labour Membership's Present to the Tories https://t.co/32moLtsyfU #SaveJez https://t.co/itICljdUUe
Reason why the Tory party makes my flesh creep number 101.
I have asked Santa for supplies of popcorn in anticipation of a cracking 2016 courtesy of Corbyn and Co. Telegraph reports rumours of a reshuffle in the new year.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/23/ugly-true-story-rhodesmustfall-oxford-universitys-answer-blacklivesmatter/
It all seems a tad unsatisfactory. If there are genuine grounds for belief these people are terrorists then a travel ban is not enough; if they are not then it is overkill.
I want Dennis Skinner appointed.
Remember, the guys who carried out the attacks in Paris traveled extensively in the year leading up to the event.
We only have one side of the story in this case and that one side has some rather large holes in it. The Americans have the right to admit who they like, I know white Christian UK citizens, with no criminal records, being rejected from entering.
Ah yes, should have read more carefully. I got a bit confused as they seem to share a name.
The report prepared by officials from the Treasury is truly depressing. We may never have joined the EEC/EU if the Eurofanatics were honest with us from the start.
Christmas Eve, and you pop out for pint of milk in the your PJs and someone wants a bleeding selfie...
https://t.co/VN0PeJexCk”
Perhaps moderate muslims in the west might be more inclined to oppose extremists when the crimes of the radicals affect their own lives more deeply.
Then again, they might blame Western governments desperately trying to protect their citizens from slaughter by terrorists.
Merry Christmas everyone!
All I can say is the college of fine art in Romania must be an odd place where they only teach their students to make the same identical sand sculpture ;-)
We'll agree to disagree - Fowler; what was his period, again?
And what do you mean more? :-)
Merry Christmas!
Forgive me whilst I doubt your impartiality.
John Redwood has done a Christmas fairy tale today about how our membership of the EU has evolved, I was jokingly suggesting you read that
I have also made it clear that there are some Tories I had far more time for than New Labour - -eg - Harold Macmillan - RA Butler - Iain Macleod - Edward Boyle - even Ted Heath.
On the other hand Tories such as the Member for Telford are very likely to have an Arbeit Macht Frei attitude to workers - indeed it is implicit in how she has treated her own staff.
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/sun-nations-christmas-quiz-test-your-knowledge-of-2015-events
It isn;t just Trump. Judging by articles on Holland, France and the UK recently, there is evidence that official attitudes to islam are hardening a little.
1. Demographics. China is the fastest ageing society and has already peaked for working age population. Growth implies huge productivity gains. How do they achieve that in a rigid statist dictatorship?
2. It has a staggeringly monumental debt load. The growth has been borrowed. With an ever diminishing GDP return on new debt. It's as if they've had Gordon Brown running the show for the last 20 years. Their financial system is not ready to absorb a downturn.
3. It's not cheap to manufacture there any more. Onshoring or wage hunting in cheaper places of all those low end jobs is causing an diabolical employment issue. Graduates can't find work.
4. They ain't pals with the neighbours.
5. And they hate each other. Chinese society is the most brutally competitive, moral free Darwinian jungle. In fact there is little society - just nationhood. I blame the one child policy.
6. The communist mandate to govern has been for a long time ' OK we're a bunch of despot a-holes, but we have lifted you out of poverty so don't riot'. When the inevitable bump in the road comes along with banking failure, high unemployment, etc what will the mandate be? The internal stability of the PRC is not a given.