Governments, especially Labour governments since 1997, have a strong belief in private sector free enterprise as a magic talisman. The reality is that private equity, foreign corporations and even foreign states are buying everything, and exporting intellectual property, profits and even subsidies.
What the private sector and especially the City is not doing is supporting British entrepreneurs and enterprises so that they can grow at home.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
That's unfair to OFSTED. Their inspectors are not as a rule ignorant of their subject matter, or at least, not in recent years (it was a bit different under Blair when recruitment rules were relaxed). Every OFSTED inspector I've had in my classroom has been a former teacher,* some of them very capable former teachers.**
Their previous chief was ignorant of education, basic safeguarding, good management practice, record keeping and apparently common sense as well as being a nauseating hypocrite and thick as pigshit. And many sad disasters she wrought as a result with her botched exam reforms and disastrous curriculum inspection framework. But that's not something ordinary inspectors should be blamed for.
*One of them had been sacked for misconduct and not told OFSTED, whose safeguarding procedures were so poor they hadn't picked it up. But that's a different problem.
**One of the others rather less so, it has to be said. But then Woodhead himself was a failed teacher and much of his bile was due to his anger at others making the grade while he hadn't.
On-topic: Politically, this looks bad. Not only that the brand new Government has no ideas of its own, but its actions have led to what growth there was being throttled to nothing. If things turn around, people likely won't care, but the Government's doing a good job of making life hard for itself.
Off-topic: a final look back at the 2024 F1 season, reviewing 10 of the top moments with the third Undercutters podcast episode:
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
On-topic: Politically, this looks bad. Not only that the brand new Government has no ideas of its own, but its actions have led to what growth there was being throttled to nothing. If things turn around, people likely won't care, but the Government's doing a good job of making life hard for itself.
Off-topic: a final look back at the 2024 F1 season, reviewing 10 of the top moments with the third Undercutters podcast episode:
Politically, this does not look bad. Political obsessives (i.e. us) will talk about it, but the average voter doesn’t care. No-one is going to change their vote over this.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
The rate of change in the German and French economies does not matter here. What matters is the size of both economies. Free trade has historically created growth.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
The rate of change in the German and French economies does not matter here. What matters is the size of both economies. Free trade has historically created growth.
A contention about to be tested from a week tomorrow, when anti-free traders enter the White House.
I suspect Reeves calls for a growth mindset won't make the slightest difference to the way regulators operate in the UK. I wonder if she knows that, or even cares. She might just be after the growth soundbite.
Big systemic financial risk right now with unregulated capital providing low quality credit. There's a lot of cash in tech companies, hedge funds etc looking for a home. Also Apple and Google Pay if they move substantially into loans, who are not regulated in the same way as banks but seem too big to fail. Also crypto, which is not regulated at all. The shit will hit the fan on this stuff in the US. It has nothing to do with UK regulation but we will get the consequences.
We had someone yesterday claiming that stopping UK farmers from exporting to the EU and getting in cheap labour from the EU was great. Because they could send their meat and two veg to Australasia instead.
I wonder what he'd have said if Musk City had been started on Mars.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
Maybe selling stuff to France and Germany rather than not selling it helps, no?
Also why would anyone invest in the UK when they could just as easily invest in the market they intend to sell to?
The economic case for the EU should've been its main strength. Perhaps the pro-EU side have actually learned they need to put forward an argument and convince people (and it doesn't require any type of bullshitting or rhetorical cunning) the EU is good economically.
But given how they did in the referendum, I'll believe that when I see it.
[Bigger market, easier trade, more trade, more profit. Benefit to economy outweighs costs (although minus rebate that equation becomes less happy)].
On the flipside, the EU has been keen to regulate AI and related work away, whereas the UK has benefited in this area. A shift to EU regulation on such matters would just be a cost.
An inconvenient fact for all those Republican states.
The top H-1B sponsors in California are overwhelmingly American technology companies. But that's not true of other states. The top sponsors outside California are almost exclusively overseas consultancies and Indian outsourcing companies. https://x.com/triplebankshot/status/1872391824188518844
This is an analysis which is likely to fuel the war between Musk and MAGA, unless the former modified his position.
I downloaded five years of H-1B data from the US DOL website (4M+ records) and spent the day crunching data.
I went into this with an open mind, but, to be honest, I'm now *extremely* skeptical of how this program works...
...You can see where I’m going with this. A casual perusal of the data shows that this isn’t a program for the top 0.1% of talent, as it’s been described. This is simply a way to recruit hundreds of thousands of relatively lower-wage IT and financial services professionals.
Hang on.
It's entirely possible - maybe even likely - that these H1(B) visas:
(a) are bad news for Americans who have invested in the technical and coding skills and (b) good news for the US economy, because they increase the total amount of coding work done. (And this is typically higher than average wages), with the corollary, of course, that it heps keep US tech firms on top, because they have a ready supply of cheap programmers
Plus:
(c) it also probably lowers the likelihood of coding work being offshored
Now, like everything, it's swings and roundabouts. And, of course, firms are profit maximizing and will seek to import an Indian on $120k/year (and who can't switch jobs for a a higher salary!), over hiring native workers. Which comes back to (a) - it sucking for Americans who invested in technical skills.
But maybe there would be substantially fewer coding jobs in the US, if they couldn't import cheap coders.
I'm not arguing with you there, Robert. I'm just noting the potential for the 'high skill' immigration debate, which has just exploded between Musk and MAGA, becoming something else.
Good morning everyone. Still somewhat grey and misty, although perhaps not as heavy as yesterday.
On topic, more or less, I'm casting a beady eye at the development of crypto-currencies. I fear that they are going to develop further and disrupt the established order of trade, and of course, once Pandora's box is opened, it can't be closed.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
The rate of change in the German and French economies does not matter here. What matters is the size of both economies. Free trade has historically created growth.
Nothing to write home about, but France and the EU generally have had faster growth rates than the UK in recent years. Germany is the problem child. As you say, it's irrelevant to whether you should want market access.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
We need fewer regulators but more regulation. A regulatory system that relies on clear rules and culpability, rather than voluntary arrangements overseen by shady quangos who deliver their own rather mealy justice.
The environment is not being served by the current arrangements.
I suspect Reeves calls for a growth mindset won't make the slightest difference to the way regulators operate in the UK. I wonder if she knows that, or even cares. She might just be after the growth soundbite...
That certainly appeared to be very much the case with yesterday's story.
It was very obviously headline bait, briefed to the media, and with an absurdly short two week deadline for a response.
As Cyclefree's header makes clear, the dialogue has been going on for much longer than that. So either it's entirely performative, or the regulators have been dragging their feet in the hope the bad idea just got forgotten.
Good morning everyone. Still somewhat grey and misty, although perhaps not as heavy as yesterday.
On topic, more or less, I'm casting a beady eye at the development of crypto-currencies. I fear that they are going to develop further and disrupt the established order of trade, and of course, once Pandora's box is opened, it can't be closed.
But it could blow up in a crisis of confidence.
Currently it's driven by demand (and not just for money laundering and drug running), momentum and very limited supply (requiring massively increasing amounts of energy to mine more bitcoins).
It could be hit by regulation or the threat of it.
Or quantum computing which could flood the market with bitcoins, or the threat of it.
Or any other bubble bursting story that runs wild.
State schools will be overloaded, and lots of communities will lose their small independent schools. Not a penny extra of money will see it's way into having any effect for state school kids.
You're an idiot for believing Reeves' propaganda, but a good example of why she does it, I guess.
Good morning everyone. Still somewhat grey and misty, although perhaps not as heavy as yesterday.
On topic, more or less, I'm casting a beady eye at the development of crypto-currencies. I fear that they are going to develop further and disrupt the established order of trade, and of course, once Pandora's box is opened, it can't be closed.
But it could blow up in a crisis of confidence.
Currently it's driven by demand (and not just for money laundering and drug running), momentum and very limited supply (requiring massively increasing amounts of energy to mine more bitcoins).
It could be hit by regulation or the threat of it.
Or quantum computing which could flood the market with bitcoins, or the threat of it.
Or any other bubble bursting story that runs wild.
And that in itself is a danger. How long did it take the early modern (think that's right) Dutch economy to recover from the Tulip Boom and Bust? Our ours recover from the South Sea Bubble. And those economies were nowhere as 'sophisticated' as ours.
We had someone yesterday claiming that stopping UK farmers from exporting to the EU and getting in cheap labour from the EU was great. Because they could send their meat and two veg to Australasia instead.
I wonder what he'd have said if Musk City had been started on Mars.
Your post indicates you find selling food to Australia and NZ unlikely - so why the danger of a flood of Australian beef and New Zealand lamb to our plucky farmers? If food can be imported from there, it can also be exported to there.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
We need fewer regulators but more regulation. A regulatory system that relies on clear rules and culpability, rather than voluntary arrangements overseen by shady quangos who deliver their own rather mealy justice.
The environment is not being served by the current arrangements.
Regulation being on a tiny list of subjects that I pronounce on at pb.com, and which I have some actual experience of, I think I disagree with you. It usually comes down to the interpretation and application of rules. Who will determine Organisation X is doing what they need to do?
Good morning everyone. Still somewhat grey and misty, although perhaps not as heavy as yesterday.
On topic, more or less, I'm casting a beady eye at the development of crypto-currencies. I fear that they are going to develop further and disrupt the established order of trade, and of course, once Pandora's box is opened, it can't be closed.
Patches of clear sky above South Manchester before dawn. So I popped up to Wild Bank Hill to see if I could watch the sun rise. But the fog crept in. Still, good to be out in it. Got back to the car about 8.45, set off for home and the cloud suddenly cleared. Beautiful.
On topic in the last couple of years I’ve been contacted by headhunters looking to fill vacancies at financial services regulators, I said no.
Regulators, for me, always seem to relighting the last war rather than looking at new threats.
Look at Andrew Bailey and how he fell upwards.
And you're not up for the challenge of changing that?
Fair enough - you prefer an easy life I suppose.
It wasn’t for an easy life, I would have had to give up PB and that was a deal breaker.
They have strict social media policies.
Well, I'm glad you're still here.
As long as that's the case, there's still the hope of educating you about the excellence of Hannibal and the finer points of history.
Indeed. I've just been looking at the Drachinfels youtube on Greek fire recommended by @MattW yesterday. Definitely something not in my Latin lessons at school - though that might have been because they didn't get into the Byzantine period, on reflection.
On topic in the last couple of years I’ve been contacted by headhunters looking to fill vacancies at financial services regulators, I said no.
Regulators, for me, always seem to relighting the last war rather than looking at new threats.
Look at Andrew Bailey and how he fell upwards.
And you're not up for the challenge of changing that?
Fair enough - you prefer an easy life I suppose.
It wasn’t for an easy life, I would have had to give up PB and that was a deal breaker.
They have strict social media policies.
Well, I'm glad you're still here.
As long as that's the case, there's still the hope of educating you about the excellence of Hannibal and the finer points of history.
Indeed. I've just been looking at the Drachinfels youtube on Greek fire recommended by @MattW yesterday. Definitely something not in my Latin lessons at school - though that might have been because they didn't get into the Byzantine period, on reflection.
I could've sworn I saw that name in my recommended videos recently.
By the time of Greek fire, Greek was the main language of the empire. Even by Justinian's time that was mostly the case.
On topic in the last couple of years I’ve been contacted by headhunters looking to fill vacancies at financial services regulators, I said no.
Regulators, for me, always seem to relighting the last war rather than looking at new threats.
Look at Andrew Bailey and how he fell upwards.
And you're not up for the challenge of changing that?
Fair enough - you prefer an easy life I suppose.
It wasn’t for an easy life, I would have had to give up PB and that was a deal breaker.
They have strict social media policies.
Well, I'm glad you're still here.
As long as that's the case, there's still the hope of educating you about the excellence of Hannibal and the finer points of history.
Indeed. I've just been looking at the Drachinfels youtube on Greek fire recommended by @MattW yesterday. Definitely something not in my Latin lessons at school - though that might have been because they didn't get into the Byzantine period, on reflection.
I could've sworn I saw that name in my recommended videos recently.
By the time of Greek fire, Greek was the main language of the empire. Even by Justinian's time that was mostly the case.
Ah, of course, that would explain it. Koine and Attic and all that. My Greek lessons ended even earlier than that, chronologically speaking!
Good morning everyone. Still somewhat grey and misty, although perhaps not as heavy as yesterday.
On topic, more or less, I'm casting a beady eye at the development of crypto-currencies. I fear that they are going to develop further and disrupt the established order of trade, and of course, once Pandora's box is opened, it can't be closed.
Patches of clear sky above South Manchester before dawn. So I popped up to Wild Bank Hill to see if I could watch the sun rise. But the fog crept in. Still, good to be out in it. Got back to the car about 8.45, set off for home and the cloud suddenly cleared. Beautiful.
One appreciates these pictures even more when one is, like me, effectively housebound. To be fair, of course, there aren't a lot of opportunities for views like this in Essex even if I could get put more.
There are some legitimate areas for City reform. London's Alternative Investment Market, fir example, has been tossed around as one which needs a rethink.
We had someone yesterday claiming that stopping UK farmers from exporting to the EU and getting in cheap labour from the EU was great. Because they could send their meat and two veg to Australasia instead.
I wonder what he'd have said if Musk City had been started on Mars.
Your post indicates you find selling food to Australia and NZ unlikely - so why the danger of a flood of Australian beef and New Zealand lamb to our plucky farmers? If food can be imported from there, it can also be exported to there.
Food security (which the Tories seem mostly to ignore). Rural economy (which the Tories do claim to care about). Simple waste of resources.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
We need fewer regulators but more regulation. A regulatory system that relies on clear rules and culpability, rather than voluntary arrangements overseen by shady quangos who deliver their own rather mealy justice.
The environment is not being served by the current arrangements.
Regulation being on a tiny list of subjects that I pronounce on at pb.com, and which I have some actual experience of, I think I disagree with you. It usually comes down to the interpretation and application of rules. Who will determine Organisation X is doing what they need to do?
I would suggest that more enforcement is a good idea.
For example, in construction, we have vast numbers of elaborate rules. Which are being ignored on an epic scale. See cases of buildings being completed, then having to be demolished. All signed off and with metric tons of paper to say that it’s all tickety boo…
As usual, the lack of enforcement makes adherence to the rules a voluntary choice. And then the bad drives out the good - my guesstimate is that you can halve construction costs for a building by ignoring the rules and er… dealing with the inspections.
We had someone yesterday claiming that stopping UK farmers from exporting to the EU and getting in cheap labour from the EU was great. Because they could send their meat and two veg to Australasia instead.
I wonder what he'd have said if Musk City had been started on Mars.
Your post indicates you find selling food to Australia and NZ unlikely - so why the danger of a flood of Australian beef and New Zealand lamb to our plucky farmers? If food can be imported from there, it can also be exported to there.
The long distance frozen food trade was pretty much invented for importing meat from Australia and New Zealand to the U.K., in the 19th century.
On topic in the last couple of years I’ve been contacted by headhunters looking to fill vacancies at financial services regulators, I said no.
Regulators, for me, always seem to relighting the last war rather than looking at new threats.
Look at Andrew Bailey and how he fell upwards.
And you're not up for the challenge of changing that?
Fair enough - you prefer an easy life I suppose.
It wasn’t for an easy life, I would have had to give up PB and that was a deal breaker.
They have strict social media policies.
Well, I'm glad you're still here.
As long as that's the case, there's still the hope of educating you about the excellence of Hannibal and the finer points of history.
Indeed. I've just been looking at the Drachinfels youtube on Greek fire recommended by @MattW yesterday. Definitely something not in my Latin lessons at school - though that might have been because they didn't get into the Byzantine period, on reflection.
I could've sworn I saw that name in my recommended videos recently.
By the time of Greek fire, Greek was the main language of the empire. Even by Justinian's time that was mostly the case.
Ah, of course, that would explain it. Koine and Attic and all that. My Greek lessons ended even earlier than that, chronologically speaking!
Yeah, the Greek/Latin distinction plus the Holy Roman Empire/Pope both trying to pretend they were successors to the Romans, as well as the Orthodox/Catholic schism, helped to really create a cultural dividing line.
I saw a recent video entitled something like Europeans Views of the Byzantine Empire.... as if the Byzantines didn't count as Europeans.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
get rid of the massiv ehassles and cost of doijng business and travelling which will be far more than we ever contributed as we see very clearly.
Good morning everyone. Still somewhat grey and misty, although perhaps not as heavy as yesterday.
On topic, more or less, I'm casting a beady eye at the development of crypto-currencies. I fear that they are going to develop further and disrupt the established order of trade, and of course, once Pandora's box is opened, it can't be closed.
But it could blow up in a crisis of confidence.
Currently it's driven by demand (and not just for money laundering and drug running), momentum and very limited supply (requiring massively increasing amounts of energy to mine more bitcoins).
It could be hit by regulation or the threat of it.
Or quantum computing which could flood the market with bitcoins, or the threat of it.
Or any other bubble bursting story that runs wild.
And that in itself is a danger. How long did it take the early modern (think that's right) Dutch economy to recover from the Tulip Boom and Bust? Our ours recover from the South Sea Bubble. And those economies were nowhere as 'sophisticated' as ours.
Bitcoin isn't a significant % of total global wealth. It's about $2,000b out of $1,000,000b total global wealth. I.e about 0.2%. Musk is worth about $500b (25% of bitcoin value and about 0.05% of total global wealth.
The following diagram is a bit out of date but shows the relative sizes of asset classes.
Edit: I hope I've got my sums right to an order of magnitude! Correct me if I'm far out.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
We need fewer regulators but more regulation. A regulatory system that relies on clear rules and culpability, rather than voluntary arrangements overseen by shady quangos who deliver their own rather mealy justice.
The environment is not being served by the current arrangements.
Regulation being on a tiny list of subjects that I pronounce on at pb.com, and which I have some actual experience of, I think I disagree with you. It usually comes down to the interpretation and application of rules. Who will determine Organisation X is doing what they need to do?
We need regulators that actually do something other than fill their pockets with huge salaries and produce reams of crap reports. If the beggars actuallty did something to ensure quality and doing what they are supposed to do then nobody would be worried. We have legions of highly paid public service drones doing a crap job and allowing parasites to bleed us dry for crap services.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
get rid of the massiv ehassles and cost of doijng business and travelling which will be far more than we ever contributed as we see very clearly.
For a vanishingly small, and ever decreasing proportion of our trade.......
For an edgelord with a ridiculous amount of money, lots of children, toys and houses, he seems to have spent most of the Holidays arguing with trolls on the internet.
I have argued on here before that the parasitical model of regulation which we have applied to so many areas by which the service is regulated and supervised paid by a levy from the industry itself has proven to be a very bad thing. The premise behind it is that it protects consumers/service users but it very largely doesn't.
What it does do, as @Cyclefree and other have pointed out, is increase the cost to consumers of the service involved by creating a well paid, very comfortable cadre who supposedly act in the public interest. What that public interest is, beyond what is said in the originating statute, is very much left to the organisation and I am astonished to report that their view is that the public interest requires more regulators, more regulation, higher salaries, more paperwork to check and more resources to fund that regulation.
I am not against Reeve's letters but I really do not hold out much hope that any regulator is going to say we need to do less with fewer staff and leave a lot of things currently regulated alone. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. The people she should ask are those who carry the burden of regulation, those who pay for their staff to produce the documentation and then someone else to mark their homework.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
Good morning everyone. Still somewhat grey and misty, although perhaps not as heavy as yesterday.
On topic, more or less, I'm casting a beady eye at the development of crypto-currencies. I fear that they are going to develop further and disrupt the established order of trade, and of course, once Pandora's box is opened, it can't be closed.
But it could blow up in a crisis of confidence.
Currently it's driven by demand (and not just for money laundering and drug running), momentum and very limited supply (requiring massively increasing amounts of energy to mine more bitcoins).
It could be hit by regulation or the threat of it.
Or quantum computing which could flood the market with bitcoins, or the threat of it.
Or any other bubble bursting story that runs wild.
And that in itself is a danger. How long did it take the early modern (think that's right) Dutch economy to recover from the Tulip Boom and Bust? Our ours recover from the South Sea Bubble. And those economies were nowhere as 'sophisticated' as ours.
Bitcoin isn't a significant % of total global wealth. It's about $2,000b out of $1,000,000b total global wealth. I.e about 0.2%. Musk is worth about $500b (25% of bitcoin value and about 0.05% of total global wealth.
The following diagram is a bit out of date but shows the relative sizes of asset classes.
Edit: I hope I've got my sums right to an order of magnitude! Correct me if I'm far out.
I have no doubt you're correct at the moment; however how far will these things develop over the next few years? And, perhaps worse, how far will they exercise the more excitable journalists?
There's only one source of sustainable growth in per capita output (or income), and that is technological progress which opens up possibilities and opportunities that didn't exist before. And that too has to be sustained to maintain long-term improvements. Also, it's a global thing - if other countries have better technology then we can benefit by adopting theirs, otherwise we have to create it ourselves and the other countries can likewise adopt our improvements. It needs a spirit of dynamism and a willingness to take on new ideas and accept inevitable failures. To foster it government needs to get out of the way, encourage risk-taking and get intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich.
One regulator which could make a huge difference to the economy is the MHRA (in conjunction with the NHS).
Figure out a better national framework for clinical trials, which are hard for drug companies to set up, and even harder for willing patients to access.
The UK is already a pretty good place to conduct research; making it better would benefit manufacturers, patients, and the economy.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
We need fewer regulators but more regulation. A regulatory system that relies on clear rules and culpability, rather than voluntary arrangements overseen by shady quangos who deliver their own rather mealy justice.
The environment is not being served by the current arrangements.
Regulation being on a tiny list of subjects that I pronounce on at pb.com, and which I have some actual experience of, I think I disagree with you. It usually comes down to the interpretation and application of rules. Who will determine Organisation X is doing what they need to do?
We need regulators that actually do something other than fill their pockets with huge salaries and produce reams of crap reports. If the beggars actuallty did something to ensure quality and doing what they are supposed to do then nobody would be worried. We have legions of highly paid public service drones doing a crap job and allowing parasites to bleed us dry for crap services.
As just noted, we do have a few The MHRA is pretty effective (which is why we were the centre for EU drug regulation before Brexit). They would be one example where planning involving government, industry, and the NHS could move the dial quite significantly.
World's most thankless top job, currently ? Occupied by a financial bureaucrat.
New acting president hit with barrage of crises https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=389339 ...Choi, who is also the deputy prime minister and finance minister, faces daunting tasks ahead as the nation confronts the unprecedented situation of both its president and prime minister — the top two figures in the government hierarchy — being simultaneously suspended from their duties. The National Assembly passed an impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk Yeol on Dec. 14 for his botched martial law declaration, and a separate motion was passed against Han Duck-soo for delaying the appointment of three Constitutional Court justice nominees to review Yoon's impeachment trial.
The new interim leader faces the tough task of taking control of both the economic and political situations in the country.
Since Yoon's short-lived martial law on Dec. 3, Choi, as the finance minister, has tried to reassure foreign countries, finance-related institutions, and investors about the stability of the Korean economy. However, as the acting president who must oversee all state affairs, he is unable to concentrate solely on economic matters, balancing the demands of both governance and economic stability during this tumultuous period.
Amid this turmoil, finance officials are urgently working to address the declining value of the Korean won against the U.S. dollar, which hit its lowest point on Friday since the 2009 global financial crisis. Analysts suggest that there is little hope for reversing the negative sentiment unless the political situation stabilizes.
Security concerns also burden Choi, as the nation's defense minister and several other military commanders have been arrested or suspended over their alleged involvement in the martial law plan. On Friday, amid growing security worries fueled by political instability, Choi instructed top defense officials to bolster the military's defense posture, warning that Pyongyang may attempt to exploit the situation in South Korea.
The political situation is even more challenging for him...
We had someone yesterday claiming that stopping UK farmers from exporting to the EU and getting in cheap labour from the EU was great. Because they could send their meat and two veg to Australasia instead.
I wonder what he'd have said if Musk City had been started on Mars.
Your post indicates you find selling food to Australia and NZ unlikely - so why the danger of a flood of Australian beef and New Zealand lamb to our plucky farmers? If food can be imported from there, it can also be exported to there.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
We need fewer regulators but more regulation. A regulatory system that relies on clear rules and culpability, rather than voluntary arrangements overseen by shady quangos who deliver their own rather mealy justice.
The environment is not being served by the current arrangements.
Regulation being on a tiny list of subjects that I pronounce on at pb.com, and which I have some actual experience of, I think I disagree with you. It usually comes down to the interpretation and application of rules. Who will determine Organisation X is doing what they need to do?
Current regulation is imposed by arms length agencies of Government who are typically given a steer towards excessively light touch application. In my field of the environment, the EA, NE, RPA etc are all criticised for a failure to regulate effectively. The main reason they regulate ineffectively is a lack of Government will to stand behind their own legal framework, to a large extent because of vested interests. As a result the polluter rarely pays and the environment continues to deteriorate.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
We need fewer regulators but more regulation. A regulatory system that relies on clear rules and culpability, rather than voluntary arrangements overseen by shady quangos who deliver their own rather mealy justice.
The environment is not being served by the current arrangements.
Regulation being on a tiny list of subjects that I pronounce on at pb.com, and which I have some actual experience of, I think I disagree with you. It usually comes down to the interpretation and application of rules. Who will determine Organisation X is doing what they need to do?
We need regulators that actually do something other than fill their pockets with huge salaries and produce reams of crap reports. If the beggars actuallty did something to ensure quality and doing what they are supposed to do then nobody would be worried. We have legions of highly paid public service drones doing a crap job and allowing parasites to bleed us dry for crap services.
As just noted, we do have a few The MHRA is pretty effective (which is why we were the centre for EU drug regulation before Brexit). They would be one example where planning involving government, industry, and the NHS could move the dial quite significantly.
Yes, the MHRA are already good. But fast-tracking approvals and supporting health research is all well and good, but sadly not the primary driver for when and where companies will do R&D or locate IP. Nor is tax (which is very favourable for IP rich pharma companies in the UK). The biggest ones are size and profitability of the market. And the USA, with its huge population, unconsolidated buyer market and hence eye popping reimbursement pricing, is the motherlode that cross-subsidises everywhere else.
Good morning everyone. Still somewhat grey and misty, although perhaps not as heavy as yesterday.
On topic, more or less, I'm casting a beady eye at the development of crypto-currencies. I fear that they are going to develop further and disrupt the established order of trade, and of course, once Pandora's box is opened, it can't be closed.
But it could blow up in a crisis of confidence.
Currently it's driven by demand (and not just for money laundering and drug running), momentum and very limited supply (requiring massively increasing amounts of energy to mine more bitcoins).
It could be hit by regulation or the threat of it.
Or quantum computing which could flood the market with bitcoins, or the threat of it.
Or any other bubble bursting story that runs wild.
And that in itself is a danger. How long did it take the early modern (think that's right) Dutch economy to recover from the Tulip Boom and Bust? Our ours recover from the South Sea Bubble. And those economies were nowhere as 'sophisticated' as ours.
Bitcoin isn't a significant % of total global wealth. It's about $2,000b out of $1,000,000b total global wealth. I.e about 0.2%. Musk is worth about $500b (25% of bitcoin value and about 0.05% of total global wealth.
The following diagram is a bit out of date but shows the relative sizes of asset classes.
Edit: I hope I've got my sums right to an order of magnitude! Correct me if I'm far out.
I have no doubt you're correct at the moment; however how far will these things develop over the next few years? And, perhaps worse, how far will they exercise the more excitable journalists?
One of the unique aspects of Bitcoin compared to proper investment assets is that it is a destroyer of investment value. Such a stupendous amount of computer processing power, and consequently energy, is required to keep the whole thing running that it consumes vast amounts of money that is turned into carbon dioxide.
I'm sure this is having a distorting effect on economies in several ways, but it won't be like the classic bubble and then burst, because the value is destroyed by the bitcoin market continuously.
Haha, well you might not like it (and other anti-EU zealots) but for good or ill, joining one of the largest trading blocks in the world would certainly help growth. You can wank yourself off to blindness over phoney concepts of "sovereignty" (that we never lost or regained) but the reality is that the country is economically poorer as a result of the self-harm vote of 2016.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
get rid of the massiv ehassles and cost of doijng business and travelling which will be far more than we ever contributed as we see very clearly.
For a vanishingly small, and ever decreasing proportion of our trade.......
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
get rid of the massiv ehassles and cost of doijng business and travelling which will be far more than we ever contributed as we see very clearly.
For a vanishingly small, and ever decreasing proportion of our trade.......
Is that like the Australia and Faroe Islands deals then, imagine only 42% of all UK exports went to EU in 2023. What planet are you on.
State schools will be overloaded, and lots of communities will lose their small independent schools. Not a penny extra of money will see it's way into having any effect for state school kids.
You're an idiot for believing Reeves' propaganda, but a good example of why she does it, I guess.
Yes, pleased to see Kemi still opposed 'Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has previously said that her party would reverse the decision and re-instate a VAT break on fees.
She said: "The bottom line is that it is a tax on aspiration.
"Taxing education is wrong, it is against our principles, so yes that is the sort of thing that I can very easily say we would not do that.”'
On-topic: Politically, this looks bad. Not only that the brand new Government has no ideas of its own, but its actions have led to what growth there was being throttled to nothing. If things turn around, people likely won't care, but the Government's doing a good job of making life hard for itself.
Off-topic: a final look back at the 2024 F1 season, reviewing 10 of the top moments with the third Undercutters podcast episode:
Politically, this does not look bad. Political obsessives (i.e. us) will talk about it, but the average voter doesn’t care. No-one is going to change their vote over this.
I'd say it actually looks good to the casual observer. It's an action and it has "growth" in the headline. The optics might even be the main point. What I hope it isn't is a serious attempt to pressure Regulators into prioritising the commercial interests of the entities they are meant to be regulating. Regulators should be policemen not partners. They need to understand the businesses they cover but not slide into identifying with them.
On topic, regulators don't create growth, business small, medium and large does.
Regulators role is just to ensure large businesses especially do not push so hard for growth they get into more debt than they can afford and which risks that viability if income streams and repayment of that debt starts to dry up
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
The rate of change in the German and French economies does not matter here. What matters is the size of both economies. Free trade has historically created growth.
Free trade yes, the EU no.
The EU historically has grown less than non-EU developed nations.
The sweet spot is to be a developed nation that embraces free trade outside of the EU.
Haha, well you might not like it (and other anti-EU zealots) but for good or ill, joining one of the largest trading blocks in the world would certainly help growth. You can wank yourself off to blindness over phoney concepts of "sovereignty" (that we never lost or regained) but the reality is that the country is economically poorer as a result of the self-harm vote of 2016.
The mistake being the idea that we have to join the EU to be part of their trading bloc. A mistake made by the zealots on both sides (including yourself it seems).
We could of course do what I always advocated and join the trading bloc by joining the EEA (which is the real trading bloc rather than the political entity). The pro-EU zealots would hate it because it removes much of their argument for rejoiing the EU. The Reform types would hate it because it would mean freedom of movement and they would see it as a sneaky backdoor back into the EU.
But it would maintain our sovereignty -a concept you have always managed to completely fail to understand even in its most basic definition - and allow us the trading benefits of the Single Market without the trading negatives of EU membership.
My main experience of regulators (FCA) is that they have imposed huge burden on industry, particularly where none was asked or necessary. Creating huge, expensive, complex requirements on businesses that fail to solve problems or target wrong areas. To the point, where it was one of the reasons for not wanting to go back into the industry.
Ultimately, all of this endless regurgitated regulation was always being paid for by customers.
These people would be the last ones I would ask for opinions on growth.
Anyway, I could have sworn that just a few months ago, Starmer and Reeves hosted a growth summit, specifically excluding Musk. Looks like that went well. They haven't a clue. Desperate times.
"The renovation of the Salt Stair, once the five-storey spine of the Salt Office, means it takes its place as an attraction alongside two other historic stairwells at Somerset House.
It joins the neighbouring Stamp Stair, once central to the Stamp Office, which became the Inland Revenue, and the more famous, grandly sweeping Nelson Stair, in the building formerly occupied by the Navy Office."
On topic, regulators don't create growth, business small, medium and large does.
Regulators role is just to ensure large businesses especially do not push so hard for growth they get into more debt than they can afford and which risks that viability if income streams and repayment of that debt starts to dry up
There's the size of the cake and there's the division of the cake. Regulation and much of government policy-making is about dividing the cake. But the more regulation there is the smaller its size.
One regulator which could make a huge difference to the economy is the MHRA (in conjunction with the NHS).
Figure out a better national framework for clinical trials, which are hard for drug companies to set up, and even harder for willing patients to access.
The UK is already a pretty good place to conduct research; making it better would benefit manufacturers, patients, and the economy.
The recovery platform trial for covid was so good... it seems incredible we can't do more of that.
On topic, regulators don't create growth, business small, medium and large does.
Regulators role is just to ensure large businesses especially do not push so hard for growth they get into more debt than they can afford and which risks that viability if income streams and repayment of that debt starts to dry up
'Regulations don't create growth'
Standard weights and measures by consensus increase economic efficiency and thus growth. These are regulations administered by a regulator. ergo you are wrong.
State schools will be overloaded, and lots of communities will lose their small independent schools. Not a penny extra of money will see it's way into having any effect for state school kids.
You're an idiot for believing Reeves' propaganda, but a good example of why she does it, I guess.
Yes, pleased to see Kemi still opposed 'Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has previously said that her party would reverse the decision and re-instate a VAT break on fees.
She said: "The bottom line is that it is a tax on aspiration.
"Taxing education is wrong, it is against our principles, so yes that is the sort of thing that I can very easily say we would not do that.”'
It doesn't matter at all what drivel Olukemi comes out with on this issue of searing importance. She has about as much chance of leading the tories into the next GE as do you or I.
The more regulators, the more performative box-tickers. From Ofsted to the Gambling Commission via whoever in the City is supposed to stop billions evaporating every few years, we have too many regulators who seem wilfully ignorant of their subject areas, and legislators who see more rules as the answer to every problem from keeping children from being beaten to death with cricket bats, to keeping children from being burned alive in tower blocks.
We need fewer regulators but more regulation. A regulatory system that relies on clear rules and culpability, rather than voluntary arrangements overseen by shady quangos who deliver their own rather mealy justice.
The environment is not being served by the current arrangements.
Regulation being on a tiny list of subjects that I pronounce on at pb.com, and which I have some actual experience of, I think I disagree with you. It usually comes down to the interpretation and application of rules. Who will determine Organisation X is doing what they need to do?
We need regulators that actually do something other than fill their pockets with huge salaries and produce reams of crap reports. If the beggars actuallty did something to ensure quality and doing what they are supposed to do then nobody would be worried. We have legions of highly paid public service drones doing a crap job and allowing parasites to bleed us dry for crap services.
As just noted, we do have a few The MHRA is pretty effective (which is why we were the centre for EU drug regulation before Brexit). They would be one example where planning involving government, industry, and the NHS could move the dial quite significantly.
Yes, the MHRA are already good. But fast-tracking approvals and supporting health research is all well and good, but sadly not the primary driver for when and where companies will do R&D or locate IP. Nor is tax (which is very favourable for IP rich pharma companies in the UK). The biggest ones are size and profitability of the market. And the USA, with its huge population, unconsolidated buyer market and hence eye popping reimbursement pricing, is the motherlode that cross-subsidises everywhere else.
Not really true; the US is quite prepared to offshore R&D - even to China - so long as they can onshore some of the profits.
The unique advantage we still have is the NHS; a national clinical trials framework might leverage that.
It's not a zero sum game, but we need to leverage our advantages to stay in it.
One regulator which could make a huge difference to the economy is the MHRA (in conjunction with the NHS).
Figure out a better national framework for clinical trials, which are hard for drug companies to set up, and even harder for willing patients to access.
The UK is already a pretty good place to conduct research; making it better would benefit manufacturers, patients, and the economy.
The recovery platform trial for covid was so good... it seems incredible we can't do more of that.
That's the sort of model I had in mind, though clearly that was a very particular case, but typical of many trials.
Haha, well you might not like it (and other anti-EU zealots) but for good or ill, joining one of the largest trading blocks in the world would certainly help growth. You can wank yourself off to blindness over phoney concepts of "sovereignty" (that we never lost or regained) but the reality is that the country is economically poorer as a result of the self-harm vote of 2016.
The mistake being the idea that we have to join the EU to be part of their trading bloc. A mistake made by the zealots on both sides (including yourself it seems).
We could of course do what I always advocated and join the trading bloc by joining the EEA (which is the real trading bloc rather than the political entity). The pro-EU zealots would hate it because it removes much of their argument for rejoiing the EU. The Reform types would hate it because it would mean freedom of movement and they would see it as a sneaky backdoor back into the EU.
But it would maintain our sovereignty -a concept you have always managed to completely fail to understand even in its most basic definition - and allow us the trading benefits of the Single Market without the trading negatives of EU membership.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
The rate of change in the German and French economies does not matter here. What matters is the size of both economies. Free trade has historically created growth.
Free trade yes, the EU no.
The EU historically has grown less than non-EU developed nations.
The sweet spot is to be a developed nation that embraces free trade outside of the EU.
PMSL, you are really are a deluded nutter. Stick to Boris being all muscle.
How would raising taxes to pay the EU membership fees create growth? Shackling ourselves to the cratering German and French economies in the hope they will buy much more of our stuff does not look a winning strategy.
get rid of the massiv ehassles and cost of doijng business and travelling which will be far more than we ever contributed as we see very clearly.
For a vanishingly small, and ever decreasing proportion of our trade.......
And why is it decreasing? Because we created added costs on it.
Comments
What the private sector and especially the City is not doing is supporting British entrepreneurs and enterprises so that they can grow at home.
Ermine thong, gold framed glasses, own throne at Arsenal ?
Their previous chief was ignorant of education, basic safeguarding, good management practice, record keeping and apparently common sense as well as being a nauseating hypocrite and thick as pigshit. And many sad disasters she wrought as a result with her botched exam reforms and disastrous curriculum inspection framework. But that's not something ordinary inspectors should be blamed for.
*One of them had been sacked for misconduct and not told OFSTED, whose safeguarding procedures were so poor they hadn't picked it up. But that's a different problem.
**One of the others rather less so, it has to be said. But then Woodhead himself was a failed teacher and much of his bile was due to his anger at others making the grade while he hadn't.
If they win this test, they're through to the WTC final at Lord's.
98 needed with seven wickets left. But not a lot of batting to come. If one of Bavuma or Markram gets out, the pressure will be on.
On-topic:
Politically, this looks bad. Not only that the brand new Government has no ideas of its own, but its actions have led to what growth there was being throttled to nothing. If things turn around, people likely won't care, but the Government's doing a good job of making life hard for itself.
Off-topic: a final look back at the 2024 F1 season, reviewing 10 of the top moments with the third Undercutters podcast episode:
Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2024-top-10-memorable-moments/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ruCsIaS26m0J5jKYTdODD
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/d3d00346-89dc-4381-a510-4003d357d100/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-2024-top-10-memorable-moments
Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2024/12/undercutters-ep3-f1-2024-top-10.html
Big systemic financial risk right now with unregulated capital providing low quality credit. There's a lot of cash in tech companies, hedge funds etc looking for a home. Also Apple and Google Pay if they move substantially into loans, who are not regulated in the same way as banks but seem too big to fail. Also crypto, which is not regulated at all. The shit will hit the fan on this stuff in the US. It has nothing to do with UK regulation but we will get the consequences.
I wonder what he'd have said if Musk City had been started on Mars.
Even The Guardian runs articles supporting it.
https://cps.org.uk/media/post/2024/stamp-duty-on-shares-is-a-tax-on-growth-new-cps-modelling-shows/
Actually, mathematically, it must. But I don't know if this is a real or significant effect in the wild.
Also why would anyone invest in the UK when they could just as easily invest in the market they intend to sell to?
But given how they did in the referendum, I'll believe that when I see it.
[Bigger market, easier trade, more trade, more profit. Benefit to economy outweighs costs (although minus rebate that equation becomes less happy)].
On the flipside, the EU has been keen to regulate AI and related work away, whereas the UK has benefited in this area. A shift to EU regulation on such matters would just be a cost.
On topic, more or less, I'm casting a beady eye at the development of crypto-currencies. I fear that they are going to develop further and disrupt the established order of trade, and of course, once Pandora's box is opened, it can't be closed.
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-12-29/state-schools-to-receive-17bn-boost-from-scrapping-private-school-vat-break
The environment is not being served by the current arrangements.
It was very obviously headline bait, briefed to the media, and with an absurdly short two week deadline for a response.
As Cyclefree's header makes clear, the dialogue has been going on for much longer than that.
So either it's entirely performative, or the regulators have been dragging their feet in the hope the bad idea just got forgotten.
Regulators, for me, always seem to relighting the last war rather than looking at new threats.
Look at Andrew Bailey and how he fell upwards.
Edit - Refighting not relighting.
Currently it's driven by demand (and not just for money laundering and drug running), momentum and very limited supply (requiring massively increasing amounts of energy to mine more bitcoins).
It could be hit by regulation or the threat of it.
Or quantum computing which could flood the market with bitcoins, or the threat of it.
Or any other bubble bursting story that runs wild.
State schools will be overloaded, and lots of communities will lose their small independent schools. Not a penny extra of money will see it's way into having any effect for state school kids.
You're an idiot for believing Reeves' propaganda, but a good example of why she does it, I guess.
Fair enough - you prefer an easy life I suppose.
Our ours recover from the South Sea Bubble.
And those economies were nowhere as 'sophisticated' as ours.
They have strict social media policies.
It would make a good slogan.
As long as that's the case, there's still the hope of educating you about the excellence of Hannibal and the finer points of history.
Got back to the car about 8.45, set off for home and the cloud suddenly cleared. Beautiful.
I am not after winning a few easy battles but rather winning the war, see The Second Punic War as the perfect example of my professional philosophy.
By the time of Greek fire, Greek was the main language of the empire. Even by Justinian's time that was mostly the case.
London's Alternative Investment Market, fir example, has been tossed around as one which needs a rethink.
For example, in construction, we have vast numbers of elaborate rules. Which are being ignored on an epic scale. See cases of buildings being completed, then having to be demolished. All signed off and with metric tons of paper to say that it’s all tickety boo…
As usual, the lack of enforcement makes adherence to the rules a voluntary choice. And then the bad drives out the good - my guesstimate is that you can halve construction costs for a building by ignoring the rules and er… dealing with the inspections.
I saw a recent video entitled something like Europeans Views of the Byzantine Empire.... as if the Byzantines didn't count as Europeans.
The following diagram is a bit out of date but shows the relative sizes of asset classes.
Edit: I hope I've got my sums right to an order of magnitude! Correct me if I'm far out.
What it does do, as @Cyclefree and other have pointed out, is increase the cost to consumers of the service involved by creating a well paid, very comfortable cadre who supposedly act in the public interest. What that public interest is, beyond what is said in the originating statute, is very much left to the organisation and I am astonished to report that their view is that the public interest requires more regulators, more regulation, higher salaries, more paperwork to check and more resources to fund that regulation.
I am not against Reeve's letters but I really do not hold out much hope that any regulator is going to say we need to do less with fewer staff and leave a lot of things currently regulated alone. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. The people she should ask are those who carry the burden of regulation, those who pay for their staff to produce the documentation and then someone else to mark their homework.
And, perhaps worse, how far will they exercise the more excitable journalists?
Figure out a better national framework for clinical trials, which are hard for drug companies to set up, and even harder for willing patients to access.
The UK is already a pretty good place to conduct research; making it better would benefit manufacturers, patients, and the economy.
The MHRA is pretty effective (which is why we were the centre for EU drug regulation before Brexit).
They would be one example where planning involving government, industry, and the NHS could move the dial quite significantly.
Occupied by a financial bureaucrat.
New acting president hit with barrage of crises
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=389339
...Choi, who is also the deputy prime minister and finance minister, faces daunting tasks ahead as the nation confronts the unprecedented situation of both its president and prime minister — the top two figures in the government hierarchy — being simultaneously suspended from their duties. The National Assembly passed an impeachment motion against President Yoon Suk Yeol on Dec. 14 for his botched martial law declaration, and a separate motion was passed against Han Duck-soo for delaying the appointment of three Constitutional Court justice nominees to review Yoon's impeachment trial.
The new interim leader faces the tough task of taking control of both the economic and political situations in the country.
Since Yoon's short-lived martial law on Dec. 3, Choi, as the finance minister, has tried to reassure foreign countries, finance-related institutions, and investors about the stability of the Korean economy. However, as the acting president who must oversee all state affairs, he is unable to concentrate solely on economic matters, balancing the demands of both governance and economic stability during this tumultuous period.
Amid this turmoil, finance officials are urgently working to address the declining value of the Korean won against the U.S. dollar, which hit its lowest point on Friday since the 2009 global financial crisis. Analysts suggest that there is little hope for reversing the negative sentiment unless the political situation stabilizes.
Security concerns also burden Choi, as the nation's defense minister and several other military commanders have been arrested or suspended over their alleged involvement in the martial law plan. On Friday, amid growing security worries fueled by political instability, Choi instructed top defense officials to bolster the military's defense posture, warning that Pyongyang may attempt to exploit the situation in South Korea.
The political situation is even more challenging for him...
But if Remoaners want to use today to have a 2019 Redux all over again then fucking bring it on.
Got work to do today but this is an epic end to an excellent test match.
I'm sure this is having a distorting effect on economies in several ways, but it won't be like the classic bubble and then burst, because the value is destroyed by the bitcoin market continuously.
Haha, well you might not like it (and other anti-EU zealots) but for good or ill, joining one of the largest trading blocks in the world would certainly help growth. You can wank yourself off to blindness over phoney concepts of "sovereignty" (that we never lost or regained) but the reality is that the country is economically poorer as a result of the self-harm vote of 2016.
Easy battles? Some might call that a silly description for the greatest military ambush in history, or the greatest battlefield victory in history.
But it's this charming ignorance that makes me glad you're here, Mr. Eagles, for the hope of your education and enlightenment springs eternal.
Speaking of spring, I have some vacuuming to do. Have a good day, everyone.
She said: "The bottom line is that it is a tax on aspiration.
"Taxing education is wrong, it is against our principles, so yes that is the sort of thing that I can very easily say we would not do that.”'
Regulators role is just to ensure large businesses especially do not push so hard for growth they get into more debt than they can afford and which risks that viability if income streams and repayment of that debt starts to dry up
The EU historically has grown less than non-EU developed nations.
The sweet spot is to be a developed nation that embraces free trade outside of the EU.
We could of course do what I always advocated and join the trading bloc by joining the EEA (which is the real trading bloc rather than the political entity). The pro-EU zealots would hate it because it removes much of their argument for rejoiing the EU. The Reform types would hate it because it would mean freedom of movement and they would see it as a sneaky backdoor back into the EU.
But it would maintain our sovereignty -a concept you have always managed to completely fail to understand even in its most basic definition - and allow us the trading benefits of the Single Market without the trading negatives of EU membership.
Ultimately, all of this endless regurgitated regulation was always being paid for by customers.
These people would be the last ones I would ask for opinions on growth.
Anyway, I could have sworn that just a few months ago, Starmer and Reeves hosted a growth summit, specifically excluding Musk. Looks like that went well. They haven't a clue. Desperate times.
"The renovation of the Salt Stair, once the five-storey spine of the Salt Office, means it takes its place as an attraction alongside two other historic stairwells at Somerset House.
It joins the neighbouring Stamp Stair, once central to the Stamp Office, which became the Inland Revenue, and the more famous, grandly sweeping Nelson Stair, in the building formerly occupied by the Navy Office."
If man of the match is anyone other than Kagiso Rabada, he should report them to the police for fraud and theft.
Standard weights and measures by consensus increase economic efficiency and thus growth. These are regulations administered by a regulator. ergo you are wrong.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c32ece5274a25a91411ea/prof-swann-report-econ-measurement-revisited-oct-09.pdf
The unique advantage we still have is the NHS; a national clinical trials framework might leverage that.
It's not a zero sum game, but we need to leverage our advantages to stay in it.