My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
Meanwhile today in Spain there was a rally (called the Diada) with hundreds of thousands of Catalans chanting 'Yes'. A referendum, illegal according to the central government, is due to take place on October 1st. One to watch.
Norway election night (for anyone that may be interested!!)
Evening all hope you're all doing well.
Ok so ahead of NZ/Germany in two weekends time tonight is the opener in the autumn election season.
Voting will close at 8pm UK time and the opinion polls are tight - counting will be done at polling stations as in most countries (the poll clerks at a station in Trondheim had laptops, makes the UK look a bit old school!)
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
DC
If the Greens end up holding the balance of power then Norway could have a rough ride ahead of it.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
When we leave we will never rejoin. The EU will rapidly move even further in directions we could not accept.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
We will definitely be going back in. And if it means without all the pathetic opt outs, then so much the better. But if we want much the same deal as we have now I would think we could get it. Britain is too big a country to push around.
The dangers of this sort of over-air auto-update is concerning.
It isn't just the danger, it is the sheer extortionate meanness of selling people expensive cars and then asking for another $9000 to make them work properly.
Well, yes. If someone's silly enough to buy a Tesla, then they deserve everything they get, good and bad. (sorry, RCS!)
It's more the ability for them to alter the functionality of a car I have purchased over the air - as an example, what happens if they chose to decrease the range of my car for some reason? Cars (and it is not just Tesla) are increasingly going for the service rather than ownership model.
Then there are the all too obvious issues of hacking the cars, as has happened with Teslas.
The Internet of Tat<./strike>Things should be kept as far away from things like cars as possible.
Yes that too, but my problem is that Musk is a man I want to like and I can't do that if he is selling crippleware.
What happens if an elderly couple run out of miles and die in Death Valley and all the time the car was good for another 40 miles if they had paid Mr Musk to unlock it?
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
Your maths still isn't adding up. Besides is this really a future we want to live in? Surviving on scraps paid for by taxing economic titans? You can kiss goodbye to economic mobility...
Well if you want to ban robots altogether fine, push that but it will probably be either that or a robots tax and universal basic income.
Economic mobility would not collapse completely in the latter course just there would be probably be fewer, perhaps even only a minority of jobs which were full time and permanent with most jobs becoming part time and short-term contract based and the gaps without work filled by the basic income.
I'm not suggesting we ban robots, I was saying that limiting their adoption is probably more workable than your idea of taxing them and it being sufficient to cover UBI. Plus it would cripple economic mobility, the jobs most at risk of automation are skilled positions, not unskilled ones.
Finally, who is going to purchase all of the products produced by the robots that replaced the humans? I suppose we increase the robot tax to increase UBI to encourage demand, but wouldn't that just cause inflation?
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is....
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
We will definitely be going back in. And if it means without all the pathetic opt outs, then so much the better. But if we want much the same deal as we have now I would think we could get it. Britain is too big a country to push around.
We won't ever rejoin, we will probably eventually rejoin EFTA with Norway, Switzerland and Iceland and maybe eventually Sweden and Denmark too which is what we joined in 1960 and which we should probably never have left to join the EEC in 1973
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
We will definitely be going back in. And if it means without all the pathetic opt outs, then so much the better. But if we want much the same deal as we have now I would think we could get it. Britain is too big a country to push around.
If we rejoin we should rejoin without opt-outs and embrace the whole project and join the push for further integration. We either do the EU or we don't do the EU, the status quo was never a sustainable option.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
I think we're headed for a bad Brexit.
That means an economic hit, the one thing I've learned over the past couple of years is that people will vote for the cheap and easy fix.
Corbyn will shamelessly offer to rejoin to fix the Brexit economic hit.
I don't wish to rejoin (as that means signing up to the Euro) but a bad Brexit might make it inevitable.
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
Your maths still isn't adding up. Besides is this really a future we want to live in? Surviving on scraps paid for by taxing economic titans? You can kiss goodbye to economic mobility...
Well if you want to ban robots altogether fine, push that but it will probably be either that or a robots tax and universal basic income.
Economic mobility would not collapse completely in the latter course just there would be probably be fewer, perhaps even only a minority of jobs which were full time and permanent with most jobs becoming part time and short-term contract based and the gaps without work filled by the basic income.
I'm not suggesting we ban robots, I was saying that limiting their adoption is probably more workable than your idea of taxing them and it being sufficient to cover UBI. Plus it would cripple economic mobility, the jobs most at risk of automation are skilled positions, not unskilled ones.
Finally, who is going to purchase all of the products produced by the robots that replaced the humans? I suppose we increase the robot tax to increase UBI to encourage demand, but wouldn't that just cause inflation?
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is....
So how would you determine this limited ban then? If you want to set out your criteria for it then fine.
As to who buys the products, well those still with fulltime and permanent jobs of course, even if they are only a minority of the population and the rest by those on UBI
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
When we leave we will never rejoin. The EU will rapidly move even further in directions we could not accept.
In general, once people have made a big constitutional change, they don't revisit it. People are too invested in the decision which they've made.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
I think we're headed for a bad Brexit.
That means an economic hit, the one thing I've learned over the past couple of years is that people will vote for the cheap and easy fix.
Corbyn will shamelessly offer to rejoin to fix the Brexit economic hit.
I don't wish to rejoin (as that means signing up to the Euro) but a bad Brexit might make it inevitable.
Corbyn wants out of the EU so he can nationalise everything. I don't think he'll want to rejoin.
Also I disagree that after the pain of leaving people are going to want to sign up to the EU including the Euro.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
I think we're headed for a bad Brexit.
That means an economic hit, the one thing I've learned over the past couple of years is that people will vote for the cheap and easy fix.
Corbyn will shamelessly offer to rejoin to fix the Brexit economic hit.
I don't wish to rejoin (as that means signing up to the Euro) but a bad Brexit might make it inevitable.
I believe we are about to enter a very necessary market correction (one that has been delayed by zero interest rates since 2008) and Brexit is the perfect excuse to let it occur and pin the blame on....
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
I think we're headed for a bad Brexit.
That means an economic hit, the one thing I've learned over the past couple of years is that people will vote for the cheap and easy fix.
Corbyn will shamelessly offer to rejoin to fix the Brexit economic hit.
I don't wish to rejoin (as that means signing up to the Euro) but a bad Brexit might make it inevitable.
Corbyn wants out of the EU so he can nationalise everything. I don't think he'll want to rejoin.
Also I disagree that after the pain of leaving people are going to want to sign up to the EU including the Euro.
Once we have nationalised everything, it is safe to rejoin
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
I think we're headed for a bad Brexit.
That means an economic hit, the one thing I've learned over the past couple of years is that people will vote for the cheap and easy fix.
Corbyn will shamelessly offer to rejoin to fix the Brexit economic hit.
I don't wish to rejoin (as that means signing up to the Euro) but a bad Brexit might make it inevitable.
You can rejoin the single market without rejoining the EU, even in the event of a bad economic hit and some voters changing their mind that still does not mean we return to the European Union
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
Your maths still isn't adding up. Besides is this really a future we want to live in? Surviving on scraps paid for by taxing economic titans? You can kiss goodbye to economic mobility...
Well if you want to ban robots altogether fine, push that but it will probably be either that or a robots tax and universal basic income.
Economic mobility would not collapse completely in the latter course just there would be probably be fewer, perhaps even only a minority of jobs which were full time and permanent with most jobs becoming part time and short-term contract based and the gaps without work filled by the basic income.
I'm not suggesting we ban robots, I was saying that limiting their adoption is probably more workable than your idea of taxing them and it being sufficient to cover UBI. Plus it would cripple economic mobility, the jobs most at risk of automation are skilled positions, not unskilled ones.
Finally, who is going to purchase all of the products produced by the robots that replaced the humans? I suppose we increase the robot tax to increase UBI to encourage demand, but wouldn't that just cause inflation?
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is....
So how would you determine this limited ban then? If you want to set out your criteria for it then fine.
As to who buys the products, well those still with fulltime and permanent jobs of course, even if they are only a minority of the population and the rest by those on UBI
Again, I'm not advocating it. I think any attempt to interfere in the market when it comes to automation is likely to cause more harm than good.
So, now you've hugely shrunk the size of the market meaning that business revenues are much lower, so how can they now afford the taxes that fund UBI?
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
But your tax is still going to hit the positive advances you've just highlighted, doubtless making them unaffordable for most.
avoidance".
If the cost of getting them all tax.
It really is barring a workable proposal being put forward rather than vague platitudes. Is there going to be an international agreement on this tax, or do we run the risk of seeing everything moved offshore to more robot friendly tax jurisdictions? There are a million questions that need to be answered, when you answer them it might be something more than magic money tree.
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
I don't see how it can be in the interests of humanity to become a load of slobs, with robots tending to every need, and our not having to lift a finger to provide for ourselves.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
I think we're headed for a bad Brexit.
That means an economic hit, the one thing I've learned over the past couple of years is that people will vote for the cheap and easy fix.
Corbyn will shamelessly offer to rejoin to fix the Brexit economic hit.
I don't wish to rejoin (as that means signing up to the Euro) but a bad Brexit might make it inevitable.
I'm not convinced there will be enough data to praise our condem Brexit by the next election.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
When we leave we will never rejoin. The EU will rapidly move even further in directions we could not accept.
In general, once people have made a big constitutional change, they don't revisit it. People are too invested in the decision which they've made.
A chunk of people who voted to leave weren't voting for a big constitutional change, they were voting for "a new hospital every week"
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
Your maths still isn't adding up. Besides is this really a future we want to live in? Surviving on scraps paid for by taxing economic titans? You can kiss goodbye to economic mobility...
Well if you want to ban robots altogether fine, push that but it will probably be either that or a robots tax and universal basic income.
Economic mobility would not collapse completely in the latter course just there would be probably be fewer, perhaps even only a minority of jobs which were full time and permanent with most jobs becoming part time and short-term contract based and the gaps without work filled by the basic income.
I'm not suggesting we ban robots, I was saying that limiting their adoption is probably more workable than your idea of taxing them and it being sufficient to cover UBI. Plus it would cripple economic mobility, the jobs most at risk of automation are skilled positions, not unskilled ones.
Finally, who is going to purchase all of the products produced by the robots that replaced the humans? I suppose we increase the robot tax to increase UBI to encourage demand, but wouldn't that just cause inflation?
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is....
So how would you determine this limited ban then? If you want to set out your criteria for it then fine.
As to who buys the products, well those still with fulltime and permanent jobs of course, even if they are only a minority of the population and the rest by those on UBI
Again, I'm not advocating it. I think any attempt to interfere in the market when it comes to automation is likely to cause more harm than good.
So, now you've hugely shrunk the size of the market meaning that business revenues are much lower, so how can they now afford the taxes that fund UBI?
If automation leads to mass unemployment or underemployment with not enough replacement permanent jobs then either you ban robots at least in whole or in part or have a UBI funded by a robots tax.
Sorry, there is no alternative and if businesses are vastly increasing their profits by slashing their human workforce and their costs and replacing them with machines they can well afford UBI.
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
But your tax is still going to hit the positive advances you've just highlighted, doubtless making them unaffordable for most.
avoidance".
If the cost of getting them all tax.
It really is barring a workable proposal being put forward rather than vague platitudes. Is there going to be an international agreement on this tax, or do we run the risk of seeing everything moved offshore to more robot friendly tax jurisdictions? There are a million questions that need to be answered, when you answer them it might be something more than magic money tree.
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
I don't see how it can be in the interests of humanity to become a load of slobs, with robots tending to every need, and our not having to lift a finger to provide for ourselves.
Just because it is not very appealing doesn't mean that it will not happen.
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
But your tax is still going to hit the positive advances you've just highlighted, doubtless making them unaffordable for most.
avoidance".
If the cost of getting them all tax.
It really is barring a workable proposal being put forward rather than vague platitudes. Is there going to be an international agreement on this tax, or do we run the risk of seeing everything moved offshore to more robot friendly tax jurisdictions? There are a million questions that need to be answered, when you answer them it might be something more than magic money tree.
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
I don't see how it can be in the interests of humanity to become a load of slobs, with robots tending to every need, and our not having to lift a finger to provide for ourselves.
There are creative pursuits we could pursue and there would still be jobs just fewer full time and permanent ones but that could be the end result of uncontrolled automation
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
I think we're headed for a bad Brexit.
That means an economic hit, the one thing I've learned over the past couple of years is that people will vote for the cheap and easy fix.
Corbyn will shamelessly offer to rejoin to fix the Brexit economic hit.
I don't wish to rejoin (as that means signing up to the Euro) but a bad Brexit might make it inevitable.
Fair enough. I'd be quite upset if you advocated joining the euro.
My gut feel is that Erna Solberg's centre-right government will have a narrow win, but it will be close and which parties cross the 4% threshold to win seats is also key.
Thanks!
It's quite surprising that not even political anoraks have paid any attention to the Norwegian election given the amount of attention the Norway option gets in Brexit discussions.
Mrs May needs a Norway debate.
I came across "Quitling" in a Remainer rant the other day. I think it means people like me who voted Remain but now accept that we are leaving, like the treacherous snakes we are.
I'm a Quitling too then I guess, although my view is the sooner we Leave, the sooner we rejoin.
Why on earth would you want to rejoin this circus, once we've gone to the trouble of leaving it, on the standard terms we'd be asked to accept?
You were a leaver once.
We will definitely be going back in. And if it means without all the pathetic opt outs, then so much the better. But if we want much the same deal as we have now I would think we could get it. Britain is too big a country to push around.
41% want a hard Brexit 24% want a soft Brexit 21% no Brexit 13% don't know
Surprised that 41% want a hard Brexit - higher than I would have expected
Wales did vote Leave let us not forget
Yes - by 53 to 47 per cent not 65 to 21 percent. Suggests quite a big confirmation of a shift towards accepting Brexit,
Did the poll define what soft and hard Brexit meant in practice? Soft for some may mean hard for others?
Not really re the big confirmation - it's a well-established fact that if a poll presents an odd number of options (3 in this case) there will be a higher vote for the "middle" one than if it offers an even number. But I agree 41% for hard Brexit, however ill-defined, is interestingly high.
If automation leads to mass unemployment or underemployment with not enough replacement permanent jobs then either you ban robots at least in whole or in part or have a UBI funded by a robots tax.
Sorry, there is no alternative and if businesses are vastly increasing their profits by slashing their human workforce and their costs and replacing them with machines they can well afford UBI.
There is an alternative. People go into other jobs rather than the ones they've been displaced from - as has happened for centuries already.
If automation leads to mass unemployment or underemployment with not enough replacement permanent jobs then either you ban robots at least in whole or in part or have a UBI funded by a robots tax.
Sorry, there is no alternative and if businesses are vastly increasing their profits by slashing their human workforce and their costs and replacing them with machines they can well afford UBI.
There is an alternative. People go into other jobs rather than the ones they've been displaced from - as has happened for centuries already.
Already most people work in service jobs.
Well if that happens and all the jobs lost by automation are replaced by new ones it creates all to the good and problem solved
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
But your tax is still going to hit the positive advances you've just highlighted, doubtless making them unaffordable for most.
avoidance".
If the cost of getting them all tax.
It really is barring a workable y tree.
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
I don't see how it can be in the interests of humanity to become a load of slobs, with robots tending to every need, and our not having to lift a finger to provide for ourselves.
There are creative pursuits we could pursue and there would still be jobs just fewer full time and permanent ones but that could be the end result of uncontrolled automation
Most people are not intellectuals. They need to work, in order to achieve self-respect.
The easiest way to fund a universal basic income would be a tax on every robot who replaced a human worker or machine
Who'd pay for that tax? The consumer.
The company, it would be a form of corporation tax charged on capital, the lower the the higher the tax
...who would increase prices to counter the impact of the tax. It's just another business expense that needs to be covered one way or another.
So the consumer then just moves to buy the products of another company whose prices are cheaper as they pay less tax as they have a higher human workforce. Simples!
Presumably the company moving to automation is doing it for cost saving purposes not simply a hatred of
Most probably which is why a tax on machinery and robotics would be so important to ensure that replacing human workers by machinery does not always lead to lower costs and to fund a universal basic income to deal with cases where it still does.
Banning robots would just prevent the positive advances in healthcare provision, IT, road safety etc they can provide
But your tax is still going to hit the positive advances you've just highlighted, doubtless making them unaffordable for most.
avoidance".
If the cost of getting them all tax.
It really is barring a workable y tree.
Any government which refuses to impose a robots tax and provide a universal basic income and sees mass unemployment and minimal welfare as a result if automation really does lead to largescale replacement of the workforce will either be voted out of office or toppled following a revolution so that issue is unlikely to arise
I don't see how it can be in the interests of humanity to become a load of slobs, with robots tending to every need, and our not having to lift a finger to provide for ourselves.
There are creative pursuits we could pursue and there would still be jobs just fewer full time and permanent ones but that could be the end result of uncontrolled automation
Most people are not intellectuals. They need to work, in order to achieve self-respect.
Sport, physical fitness too, not just the arts and culture and as I said work would not cease just be more likely to be part time and contract based work for many if not most
If automation leads to mass unemployment or underemployment with not enough replacement permanent jobs then either you ban robots at least in whole or in part or have a UBI funded by a robots tax.
Sorry, there is no alternative and if businesses are vastly increasing their profits by slashing their human workforce and their costs and replacing them with machines they can well afford UBI.
There is an alternative. People go into other jobs rather than the ones they've been displaced from - as has happened for centuries already.
Already most people work in service jobs.
Indeed - surely people have been predicting automation will lead to mass unemployment for as long as anyone can remember.
Well here we are in 2017 - and as of today there are a record number of people IN employment.
So shouldn't we wait to actually see evidence of automation increasing unemployment before proposing policies in respect of such an occurrence?
Interesting thread - congrats to Cyclefree for prompting it. Richard Tyndall overestimates the power of the whips in my opinion - the reason parties tend to vote together is mainly that they are composed of fairly like-minded people, and those who are not like-minded cheerfully vote differently (cf. Jeremy). You can't make persuasion illegal, and the idea that whips operate with bribes and threats is mostly wrong. What is very common is an appeal to loyalty - "you don't want to end up in the lobby with those people who you disagree with and will gloat over your defection, do you?"
The real problem is that politics in Britain is so polarised, so that all choices appear to be binary and nuance is scorned. And I do blame FPTP for that (plus our gutter media) - one reason the bias to moderation has emerged in countries like Germany and Scandinavia is that it's rare for any party to win outright, so you always have to deal with people with somewhat different views.
Interesting thread - congrats to Cyclefree for prompting it. Richard Tyndall overestimates the power of the whips in my opinion - the reason parties tend to vote together is mainly that they are composed of fairly like-minded people, and those who are not like-minded cheerfully vote differently (cf. Jeremy). You can't make persuasion illegal, and the idea that whips operate with bribes and threats is mostly wrong. What is very common is an appeal to loyalty - "you don't want to end up in the lobby with those people who you disagree with and will gloat over your defection, do you?"
The real problem is that politics in Britain is so polarised, so that all choices appear to be binary and nuance is scorned. And I do blame FPTP for that (plus our gutter media) - one reason the bias to moderation has emerged in countries like Germany and Scandinavia is that it's rare for any party to win outright, so you always have to deal with people with somewhat different views.
Though on the latest German polls the Afd and Die Linke are on around 10% each and in Sweden the Swedish Democrats are polling just under 20% and none of those parties are exactly moderate
Oscar Wilde wrote The Soul of Man under Socialism about how we would sit around being cultured while the machines did all the work. Problem is you need the socialism bit because otherwise Greedy Bastards Inc own the machines and want to maximise shareholder value. Conversely if you have socialism you have a nomenklatura reaping all the benefits. So either way it's eloi and morlocks, spartiates and helots or whatever.
Comments
You were a leaver once.
What happens if an elderly couple run out of miles and die in Death Valley and all the time the car was good for another 40 miles if they had paid Mr Musk to unlock it?
Finally, who is going to purchase all of the products produced by the robots that replaced the humans? I suppose we increase the robot tax to increase UBI to encourage demand, but wouldn't that just cause inflation?
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is....
Also Labour (Ap) might be in danger of losing their first election since 1924.
That means an economic hit, the one thing I've learned over the past couple of years is that people will vote for the cheap and easy fix.
Corbyn will shamelessly offer to rejoin to fix the Brexit economic hit.
I don't wish to rejoin (as that means signing up to the Euro) but a bad Brexit might make it inevitable.
As to who buys the products, well those still with fulltime and permanent jobs of course, even if they are only a minority of the population and the rest by those on UBI
Also I disagree that after the pain of leaving people are going to want to sign up to the EU including the Euro.
So, now you've hugely shrunk the size of the market meaning that business revenues are much lower, so how can they now afford the taxes that fund UBI?
NEW THREAD
Sorry, there is no alternative and if businesses are vastly increasing their profits by slashing their human workforce and their costs and replacing them with machines they can well afford UBI.
http://www.britain-magazine.com/news/princess-anne-opens-postal-museum-mail-rail/
Already most people work in service jobs.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/907328141567426562
Well here we are in 2017 - and as of today there are a record number of people IN employment.
So shouldn't we wait to actually see evidence of automation increasing unemployment before proposing policies in respect of such an occurrence?
The real problem is that politics in Britain is so polarised, so that all choices appear to be binary and nuance is scorned. And I do blame FPTP for that (plus our gutter media) - one reason the bias to moderation has emerged in countries like Germany and Scandinavia is that it's rare for any party to win outright, so you always have to deal with people with somewhat different views.