"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 17:42:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Does it really matter if you didn't realise we import the vast
majority of our energy?

where is yuor evidence for this anyway.

Get one of your students to show you how to use Google? And explain to
you
what energy is?

Maybe google can explain why we were self sufficient in energy until
recently

Pigs arse Britain was since the war.

On 06/07/2016 10:48, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 17:42:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:
Does it really matter if you didn't realise we import the vast
majority of our energy?

where is yuor evidence for this anyway.

Get one of your students to show you how to use Google? And explain
to you what energy is?

Maybe google can explain why we were self sufficient in energy until
recently remind me why we are de-commitioning our coal fired power
stations .




Because the UK started the GW scandel and has signed up to the UNs
climate change BS.

And we weren't self sufficient in energy then as we still imported most
of the fuel used. We were and still are able to generate enough
electricity to supply the UK but only just.

Energy will go up in price if the pound falls against the dollar as
thats how its sold.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 17:42:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Does it really matter if you didn't realise we import the vast
majority of our energy?

where is yuor evidence for this anyway.

Get one of your students to show you how to use Google? And explain to
you what energy is?

Maybe google can explain why we were self sufficient in energy until
recently remind me why we are de-commitioning our coal fired power
stations .

You don't know we closed most of our coal mines? That North Sea oil and
gas are running out?

--
*Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And we weren't self sufficient in energy then as we still imported most
of the fuel used. We were and still are able to generate enough
electricity to supply the UK but only just.

Using UK sourced energy? Like coal or gas etc?

Generating capacity has little to do with being self sufficient in energy.

We certainly have enough coal to supply all our electricity needs. But
difficult to mine coal.

We may also have a enough shale gas too. Again with the mining problem.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

posted
On Monday, 4 July 2016 12:53:05 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger generation
who wanted to Remain. One day they will see why the 16-18 year olds
shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income is needed to
cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

I don't know why you believe that. Large numbers of Eastern European
immigrants have sharply increased the demand for rented accommodation,
and the price has risen accordingly.

--
Les

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
posted
On Monday, 4 July 2016 12:53:05 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger generation
who wanted to Remain. One day they will see why the 16-18 year olds
shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income is needed to
cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

I don't know why you believe that. Large numbers of Eastern European
immigrants have sharply increased the demand for rented accommodation,
and the price has risen accordingly.

But they all take jobs from UK workers by working for near nothing. And
send most of their money home. So how do they afford those high rents?

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
posted
On Monday, 4 July 2016 12:53:05 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger
generation
who wanted to Remain. One day they will see why the 16-18 year
olds
shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to
borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income is needed to
cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

I don't know why you believe that. Large numbers of Eastern European
immigrants have sharply increased the demand for rented accommodation,
and the price has risen accordingly.

But they all take jobs from UK workers by working for near nothing. And
send most of their money home. So how do they afford those high rents?

By having 20 to the house, stupid.

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 11:30:27 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 12:53:05 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger generation
who wanted to Remain. One day they will see why the 16-18 year olds
shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that. I thought the whole idea of the free movement of labour was that peole could move to where they wanted and now London especailly seemstop have a housing crisis and you're telling me there's no link.

Your name is on God's calendar.

whisky-dave wrote
wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Fredxxx wrote

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger
generation who wanted to Remain. One day they will see
why the 16-18 year olds shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to
borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income
is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that.

Yep, happened all over the world in places that are not in the EU.

I thought the whole idea of the free movement of labour was that
peole could move to where they wanted and now London especailly
seemstop have a housing crisis and you're telling me there's no link.

Yep, the same thing has happened with Sydney and Melbourne and
they dont have free movement of people into Australia so that can't
be the reason for less people being able to afford to buy houses, and
for renting being more difficult than it was years ago.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 03:13:40 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 4 July 2016 22:57:19 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 04:53:03 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
snip

And making imports more expensive. Like food. And pretty well all the
essentials. Energy and so on.

We import energy ?

See, the is the problem Dave. How can you (or most of us) make an
informed *decision* on how Brexit might effect us if you don't know
about all the components?

And of course you know all the components.
Now this energy we import does it come from the EU.
We’re buying coal from Russia, shipping in uranium from Kazakhstan and piping in gas from Norway.

Yes and I stated exactly that, but what I also suggested is we may
deal with those countries outside the EU as a member of the EU. When
we stop being members, those deals may break and need re-negotiating?

Even if you look at Gridwatch (TNP can get some things right g) and
the little meters on the RHS that cover the 'interconnects' (undersea
cables) between us and the likes of France and Holland and some more
local ones as well. And we also import coal, oil, gas and uranium (not
all from EU countries but still countries that may have trade deals
with us via the EU).

Did you ever see this Dave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI

Yes twice it's been on facebook.

Ok (I don't do Facebook).

Have you ever read this :-

https://varoufakis.files.wordpress.c...ne-paradox.pdf

No (TL;DR) and who is 'Yanis Varoufakis' anyway? Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanis_Varoufakis

Ah ... "Whilst at university, he was a supporter of various radical
causes."

So, unlike the 'expert' in the link I reposted above, Yanis is a
politician and that is supposed to mean he is to be trusted /
believed?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 08:07:32 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip

it does if you're paying into a free market and paying again for the actual products.

I'm not sure that's what the free market means Dave. ;-)

You might be closer if it were a 'Flea market' ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Thursday, 7 July 2016 11:18:17 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Fredxxx wrote

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger
generation who wanted to Remain. One day they will see
why the 16-18 year olds shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to
borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income
is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that.

Yep, happened all over the world in places that are not in the EU.

Happene din teh UK to a greater extent than most places.
Quite easy to prove.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...l-house-prices
Ypiu can drag it all the way back to 1970 and have almost any country you like displayed and comnpared.

AN ENGLISHMANS home is his castle. Those castles, however, are among the smallest in the rich world: the average house size in Britain is just 86 square metres (925 square feet), around 40% smaller than the average American home. This fact has not dampened Britain's appetite for housing. As our interactive chart above demonstrates, between 2000 and 2006, British and American house prices were on a similar trajectory, rising by around 80%.. While the roof subsequently fell in on the American housing market, British house prices continued to accelerate upwards, after a brief blip in 2008-09.




I thought the whole idea of the free movement of labour was that
peole could move to where they wanted and now London especailly
seemstop have a housing crisis and you're telling me there's no link.

Yep, the same thing has happened with Sydney and Melbourne and
they dont have free movement of people into Australia so that can't
be the reason for less people being able to afford to buy houses, and
for renting being more difficult than it was years ago.

No the reason is demand and you get higher demand when more people want to live in that area or the value of the area increases for whatever reason.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Less people can afford that now that in the past. Even renting is
difficult in that more or yuor income is needed to cover the rent,
that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that.

Was it the EU that got rid of controlled rent? Virtually stopped council
house building? The EU doesn't control the numbers or types of houses
built in the UK or anywhere else.


I thought the whole idea of the free movement of
labour was that peole could move to where they wanted and now London
especailly seemstop have a housing crisis and you're telling me there's
no link.

Trying to get at how you think. The vast majority of those immigrants to
London work. So are contributing to society. Society generally takes a
proportion of their income to pay for running the country. Which can
include building enough of the correct types of housing, or controlling
those who do. And so on.

You seem to be implying nothing is the responsibility of the government.
Then no point in having one.

--
*Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 7 July 2016 12:51:37 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 03:13:40 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Monday, 4 July 2016 22:57:19 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 04:53:03 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 14:29:27 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
snip

And making imports more expensive. Like food. And pretty well all the
essentials. Energy and so on.

We import energy ?

See, the is the problem Dave. How can you (or most of us) make an
informed *decision* on how Brexit might effect us if you don't know
about all the components?

And of course you know all the components.
Now this energy we import does it come from the EU.
Were buying coal from Russia, shipping in uranium from Kazakhstan and piping in gas from Norway.

Yes and I stated exactly that, but what I also suggested is we may
deal with those countries outside the EU as a member of the EU. When
we stop being members, those deals may break and need re-negotiating?

May do and may not. Nother to do with the May who may be leader of the conservatives.
I remmeber the early days of the EEC when we were selling EU butter to russia for far cheaper than anyone could buy it in the UK
So maybe now we're out of the EU we might not have to pay their tarriffs.

Why has the UK reduced it's ability to provide power to the country by shutting down power stations ?

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...lent)_YB15.png



Even if you look at Gridwatch (TNP can get some things right g) and
the little meters on the RHS that cover the 'interconnects' (undersea
cables) between us and the likes of France and Holland and some more
local ones as well. And we also import coal, oil, gas and uranium (not
all from EU countries but still countries that may have trade deals
with us via the EU).

Did you ever see this Dave?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI

Yes twice it's been on facebook.

Ok (I don't do Facebook).

Lucky you, I sort of get dragged into it.


Have you ever read this :-

https://varoufakis.files.wordpress.c...ne-paradox.pdf

No (TL;DR) and who is 'Yanis Varoufakis' anyway? Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanis_Varoufakis

Ah ... "Whilst at university, he was a supporter of various radical
causes."

So are a lot of students while at uni. well they used to be.
Why not address his points of where he was working rather than what he got up to at uni.
For instance I know of a muslim studetn who was shagging and drining (not at the same time) in teh SU bar almost every week but he had a respectable image and his wife back home had no idea.
Another muslim who has a wife back home has fathered two children with one of my friend but has dumped her leaving the UK tax payer to bring up the kids.
His family know nothing about his uni life he had in the UK.


So, unlike the 'expert' in the link I reposted above, Yanis is a
politician and that is supposed to mean he is to be trusted /
believed?

if you check out what he says with 'google' .....


Unless you check out what's said then you won't know who to believe.

On Thursday, 7 July 2016 13:47:04 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Less people can afford that now that in the past. Even renting is
difficult in that more or yuor income is needed to cover the rent,
that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that.

Was it the EU that got rid of controlled rent? Virtually stopped council
house building? The EU doesn't control the numbers or types of houses
built in the UK or anywhere else.

Then who does contol such things.


I thought the whole idea of the free movement of
labour was that peole could move to where they wanted and now London
especailly seemstop have a housing crisis and you're telling me there's
no link.

Trying to get at how you think. The vast majority of those immigrants to
London work.

Yes they do although I'm not sure how you aquire this information considering even the govenment don;t know how many people are actualy living in the UK.


So are contributing to society.

Whatever that means.

Society generally takes a
proportion of their income to pay for running the country. Which can
include building enough of the correct types of housing, or controlling
those who do. And so on.

Not worked out to well has it.
http://www.building.co.uk/hundreds-a...079660.article

easy to find WMD in Iraq wasn't it.


You seem to be implying nothing is the responsibility of the government.

it is the responsibility of teh government to plan for the countrie sfutre in making sure that there's heathcare and education for all that live in the country not just the rich.
When a governemtn can;t even build enough houses and sells off a lot of those it owns and dosnt; use teh money to invest in new homes I see that as a problem
even if you have ZERO immigration.


Then no point in having one.

--
*Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

Why has the UK reduced it's ability to provide power to the country by shutting down
power stations ?

David Ricardo. The theory of comparative advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage


Basically we're better off making stuff in which we have a
large comparative advantage to sell to the people selling
us things in which they have a comparative advantage,
(where they can make them cheaper than us) than we
would be devoting those resources to producing
our own energy, even if we had a small comparative
advantage in energy production.

Even if we could produce energy cheaper than abroad,
it still makes sense to devote all our investment and
export effort into fields in which we have an even bigger
comparative advantage such say financial services.


michael adams

....

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
May do and may not. Nother to do with the May who may be leader of the
conservatives. I remmeber the early days of the EEC when we were selling
EU butter to russia for far cheaper than anyone could buy it in the UK

The days of butter mountains etc are long since gone. Why bring them up as
if they still happened?

So maybe now we're out of the EU we might not have to pay their tarriffs.

Don't quite think you understand a free market. No tariffs between
members. When and if we leave is when there will be tariffs.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 7 July 2016 14:37:24 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

Why has the UK reduced it's ability to provide power to the country by shutting down
power stations ?

David Ricardo. The theory of comparative advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage


Basically we're better off making stuff in which we have a
large comparative advantage to sell to the people selling
us things in which they have a comparative advantage,

But have to buy power from others.
Not a good barganing postion you might as well out source everything.


(where they can make them cheaper than us)

why can they make it cheaper than us ?


than we
would be devoting those resources to producing
our own energy, even if we had a small comparative
advantage in energy production.

which we did have.


Even if we could produce energy cheaper than abroad,
it still makes sense to devote all our investment and
export effort into fields in which we have an even bigger
comparative advantage such say financial services.

no it doesn't because it makes us a one trick pony.
Germany isn't taking this route is it, I wonder why.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Was it the EU that got rid of controlled rent? Virtually stopped
council house building? The EU doesn't control the numbers or types of
houses built in the UK or anywhere else.

Then who does contol such things.

So called market forces. The holy grail of the right wing. Although more
usually by singing the praises of it - market competition bringing down
prices. Except of course where it doesn't.

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 7 July 2016 15:02:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
May do and may not. Nother to do with the May who may be leader of the
conservatives. I remmeber the early days of the EEC when we were selling
EU butter to russia for far cheaper than anyone could buy it in the UK

The days of butter mountains etc are long since gone. Why bring them up as
if they still happened?

if you'd had not snip the lines above you would have known.


So maybe now we're out of the EU we might not have to pay their tarriffs.

Don't quite think you understand a free market. No tariffs between
members. When and if we leave is when there will be tariffs.

Are yuo realy sure it works that way.
I suggest you check very closely to how they work.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 7 July 2016 14:37:24 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

David Ricardo. The theory of comparative advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage



Even if we could produce energy cheaper than abroad,
it still makes sense to devote all our investment and
export effort into fields in which we have an even bigger
comparative advantage such say financial services.

no it doesn't because it makes us a one trick pony.

I didn't say "only" financial services.This applies to every field
in which the UK has both an absolute* advantage and a
comparative over one or more of its trading partners in producing
anything.

An absolute advantage is where Country A makes something
X cheaper than Country B. A comparative advantage
takes into account what Country B has to sell in return
say Z's, and whether it might not be better to sell Ys to
Country C, even if the absolute advantage compared with
X's is smaller, given that Country C can sell Z's even
cheaper in return


Germany isn't taking this route is it, I wonder why.

All countries take this route otherwise all international trade
would dry up. If countries *only* ever imported stuff that was
cheaper to produce abroad, and *only* ever exported
things which were cheaper to produce at home
then the volume of international trade would fall.

Instead all trading countries produce a variety of
goods and services, and seek to export those
which offer the biggest comparative advantage
among all the things they export. If all trading
countries adopt this strategy then the volume of
production and trade will grow to its greatest
possible extent.


michael adams

....

On Thursday, 7 July 2016 15:02:49 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
May do and may not. Nother to do with the May who may be leader of the
conservatives. I remmeber the early days of the EEC when we were selling
EU butter to russia for far cheaper than anyone could buy it in the UK

The days of butter mountains etc are long since gone. Why bring them up as
if they still happened?

So maybe now we're out of the EU we might not have to pay their tarriffs.

Don't quite think you understand a free market. No tariffs between
members. When and if we leave is when there will be tariffs.

Meant to add the bit about buying steel from china.
Just because the EU immposes tarrifs it doesn;lt mean that simila rproducts arent; cheaper from other countries and we can now freely buy from them just like they can buy from us without us adding EU tarriffs.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:37:18 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

snip

Even if we could produce energy cheaper than abroad,
it still makes sense to devote all our investment and
export effort into fields in which we have an even bigger
comparative advantage such say financial services.

I did some networking work for a small / local gas power station. They
had guys with multiple screens buying gas for the future.

It got to a point when they found they could earn more money by buying
and selling gas (do they call that futures trading?) than they could
buying it and converting it into electricity so they shut the place
down. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Fredxxx wrote

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger
generation who wanted to Remain. One day they will see
why the 16-18 year olds shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters.
Being able to borrow money to buy it - or being
able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income
is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that.

Yep, happened all over the world in places that are not in the EU.

Happene din teh UK to a greater extent than most places.

Most places is irrelevant, what matters is places outside
the EU that have seen a similar hike in house prices and
rent and there are plenty of those.

Quite easy to prove.

Yep, that it has nothing to do with the EU.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/daily...l-house-prices
Ypiu can drag it all the way back to 1970 and have almost any country you
like displayed and comnpared.

AN ENGLISHMANS home is his castle.

Your slum of a flat is nothing even remotely like a castle.
Hasnt even got a drawbridge or even a moat either.

Those castles, however, are among the smallest in the rich world:
the average house size in Britain is just 86 square metres (925
square feet), around 40% smaller than the average American home.

Because you lot are much poorer than the yanks.

This fact has not dampened Britain's appetite for housing.
As our interactive chart above demonstrates, between 2000
and 2006, British and American house prices were on a similar
trajectory, rising by around 80%. While the roof subsequently
fell in on the American housing market, British house prices
continued to accelerate upwards, after a brief blip in 2008-09.

Nothing to do with the EU. Sydney and Melbourne
house prices hiked even more than London in that
time and even you should have noticed isn't in the EU.

I thought the whole idea of the free movement of labour was that
peole could move to where they wanted and now London especailly
seemstop have a housing crisis and you're telling me there's no link.

Yep, the same thing has happened with Sydney and Melbourne and
they dont have free movement of people into Australia so that can't
be the reason for less people being able to afford to buy houses, and
for renting being more difficult than it was years ago.

No the reason is demand and you get higher demand when more people
want to live in that area or the value of the area increases for whatever
reason.

Still no link with the free movement of EU citizens into Britain.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income
is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that.

Was it the EU that got rid of controlled rent? Virtually stopped
council house building? The EU doesn't control the numbers
or types of houses built in the UK or anywhere else.

I thought the whole idea of the free movement of labour
was that peole could move to where they wanted and
now London especailly seemstop have a housing crisis
and you're telling me there's no link.

Trying to get at how you think.

He doesn’t, just bull****s when his nose is rubbed
in the basics. Just like you in that regard.

The vast majority of those immigrants to London work.
So are contributing to society. Society generally takes a
proportion of their income to pay for running the country.
Which can include building enough of the correct types
of housing, or controlling those who do. And so on.

Only the places into stupid socialism that has the govt doing that stuff.

You seem to be implying nothing is
the responsibility of the government.

Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.
He never ever said anything even remotely like that.

Then no point in having one.

Having run thrashing yet another straw man ?

whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income
is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that.

Was it the EU that got rid of controlled rent? Virtually stopped
council house building? The EU doesn't control the numbers or
types of houses built in the UK or anywhere else.

Then who does contol such things.

With the first two, obviously the UK govt.

With the rest, no one does directly.

I thought the whole idea of the free movement of labour
was that peole could move to where they wanted and
now London especailly seemstop have a housing crisis
and you're telling me there's no link.

Trying to get at how you think. The vast
majority of those immigrants to London work.

Yes they do although I'm not sure how you aquire this
information considering even the govenment don;t
know how many people are actualy living in the UK.

Dont need to know that last to know the first.

So are contributing to society.

Whatever that means.

Providing work for those who provide them
with food and other stuff they need/buy etc.

Society generally takes a proportion of their income
to pay for running the country. Which can include
building enough of the correct types of housing,
or controlling those who do. And so on.

Not worked out to well has it.
http://www.building.co.uk/hundreds-a...079660.article

There will always be illegals in any situation
which isnt complete open slather.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

You seem to be implying nothing is the responsibility of the government.

it is the responsibility of teh government to plan for the
countrie sfutre in making sure that there's heathcare and
education for all that live in the country not just the rich.

And Britain has done that pretty well. So well
in fact that hordes of the dregs of the EU keep
pouring into Britain because Britain does that
a lot better than where they are coming from.

When a governemtn can;t even build enough houses
and sells off a lot of those it owns and dosnt; use teh
money to invest in new homes I see that as a problem
even if you have ZERO immigration.

More fool you. It makes no sense for govt to be doing most of that.

Then no point in having one.

michael adams wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Why has the UK reduced it's ability to provide power to the country by
shutting down power stations ?

Because the EU required Britain do that.

David Ricardo. The theory of comparative advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

Nothing whatever to do with that.

Basically we're better off making stuff in which we have a
large comparative advantage to sell to the people selling
us things in which they have a comparative advantage,
(where they can make them cheaper than us) than we
would be devoting those resources to producing our own energy, even if we
had a small comparative
advantage in energy production.

Even sillier than you usually manage. What resources
are used to provide the power used in Britain can't be
used to produce what Britain does sell to others and
in fact the power produced in Britain is an absolutely
necessary resource for those who do produce what is
sold to other like aircraft engines and Airbus wings etc.

You can't even claim that its cheaper to buy electricity
from France that had enough of a clue to build so many
nukes when Britain didn’t have enough of a clue to do
that itself and it makes a lot more sense for Britain to
get off its arse and build some French nukes in Britain
itself rather than proclaim that there is anything special
about Britain that needs a completely new design of
nukes for Britain.

Even if we could produce energy cheaper than abroad,

Of course Britain can produce electricity from its own
nukes more cheaply than it can import it from France
or Holland over a very expensive undersea cable or
even via a cable thru the chunnel etc.

it still makes sense to devote all our investment and
export effort into fields in which we have an even bigger
comparative advantage such say financial services.

It isnt either/or. No reason why Britain can't do both.

And if that fool Brown hadn't deregulated the banks
and had to spend billions bailing the worst of them
out when the **** inevitably hit the fan, it could have
spent what he ****ed against the wall on doing that
on a few French nukes instead and fixed the power
generation problem in Britain for a generation or more.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

So maybe now we're out of the EU we might not have to pay their tarriffs.

Don't quite think you understand a free market.

You don’t either.

No tariffs between members.

But tariffs apply to what comes into the group
from outside it and Britain imports a lot more
from outside the EU than from the EU.

When and if we leave is when there will be tariffs.

Not on stuff that comes from either outside the EU or
from the EU either. So you are just plain wrong, as always.

whisky-dave wrote
michael adams wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Why has the UK reduced it's ability to provide power
to the country by shutting down power stations ?

David Ricardo. The theory of comparative advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

Basically we're better off making stuff in which we have a
large comparative advantage to sell to the people selling
us things in which they have a comparative advantage,

But have to buy power from others.
Not a good barganing postion

Depends on what you do better than power
generation, like aircraft engines and Airbus wings.

you might as well out source everything.

Not even possible for a country to do that.

(where they can make them cheaper than us)

why can they make it cheaper than us ?

Much lower labour costs, they organise things much
better with german car industry particularly, they had
enough of a clue to have been building nukes for
years now in the case of the French, they have much
cheap coal mining possible than Britain, etc etc etc.

than we would be devoting those resources
to producing our own energy, even if we had a
small comparative advantage in energy production.

which we did have.

And lost that when coal mining in Britain was
no longer viable and the rest of the world did
it much better with strip mining instead.

Britain couldnt even manage to do nukes anywhere
near as well as the French did either and was actually
stupid enough to stop building them too.

Even if we could produce energy cheaper than abroad,
it still makes sense to devote all our investment and
export effort into fields in which we have an even bigger
comparative advantage such say financial services.

no it doesn't because it makes us a one trick pony.

Britain is never going to be a one trick pony.

Germany isn't taking this route is it, I wonder why.

Because they have been stupid enough to have a
proportional voting system and that has meant that
their Greens have got a hell of a lot more political power
than the number of people voting for them warrants.

In the case of financial services, Germany has always
been much more conservative than Britain, most likely
because of the utter shambles they once had in their
financial systems between the war due to reparations.

T i m" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:37:18 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

snip

Even if we could produce energy cheaper than abroad,
it still makes sense to devote all our investment and
export effort into fields in which we have an even bigger
comparative advantage such say financial services.

I did some networking work for a small / local gas power station. They
had guys with multiple screens buying gas for the future.

It got to a point when they found they could earn more money
by buying and selling gas (do they call that futures trading?)

Only when they are trading the prices for FUTURE trades.
That is where the name comes from.

than they could buying it and converting it
into electricity so they shut the place down. ;-(

Rod Speed posted
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Fredxxx wrote

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger
generation who wanted to Remain. One day they will see
why the 16-18 year olds shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to
borrow
money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income
is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that.

Yep, happened all over the world in places that are not in the EU.

I thought the whole idea of the free movement of labour was that
peole could move to where they wanted and now London especailly
seemstop have a housing crisis and you're telling me there's no link.

Yep, the same thing has happened with Sydney and Melbourne and
they dont have free movement of people into Australia so that can't
be the reason for less people being able to afford to buy houses, and
for renting being more difficult than it was years ago.

No-one said the free movement of EU citizens caused house prices and
rents to rise in Sydney. Just in the UK.

Lots of things can push rental costs upwards. Immigration is one of
them, and it happens to be an important one in London. That fact is
irrelevant to rental prices in Sydney.

--
Les

Big Les Wade wrote
Rod Speed posted
whisky-dave wrote
wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Fredxxx wrote

House price reductions are more likely to help the younger
generation who wanted to Remain. One day they will see
why the 16-18 year olds shouldn't get the vote.

Yes. It's only how much a house costs that matters. Being able to
borrow money to buy it - or being able to afford that loan is
unimportant.

Less people can afford that now that in the past.
Even renting is difficult in that more or yuor income
is needed to cover the rent, that it was years ago.

The reasons for which have nothing to do with EU membership.

Can you prove that.

Yep, happened all over the world in places that are not in the EU.

I thought the whole idea of the free movement of labour was that
peole could move to where they wanted and now London especailly
seemstop have a housing crisis and you're telling me there's no link.

Yep, the same thing has happened with Sydney and Melbourne and
they dont have free movement of people into Australia so that can't
be the reason for less people being able to afford to buy houses, and
for renting being more difficult than it was years ago.

No-one said the free movement of EU citizens caused house prices and rents
to rise in Sydney. Just in the UK.

Yes, but the point is that when they rose faster in Australia than in
Britain,
that can't have been due to the free movement of EU citizens into Britain.

Lots of things can push rental costs upwards.

That is mostly due to the shortage of rental property.

Immigration is one of them, and it happens to be an important one in
London.

We were clearly discussing whether the free movement of people
is the driver of rental costs. It clearly isnt when Australia has seen
an even bigger increase in rental costs than Britain has and
doesnt have free movement of people into Australia.

That fact is irrelevant to rental prices in Sydney.

Wrong.