The plan is to fire that stupid twaught May and put somebody in who’s not such a damn fool. The rest is details.
No income tax, 10% national sales tax (no, not a VAT), 2-3% tax on real estate transfer, 0% estate tax, 10% corporate income tax
So no tax base.
GBP debts can’t be paid . No NHS. Bankruptcy. IMF loans . New bunch of squatters in Buckingham Palace . Social implosion ?
He asked what I wanted.
What I wish for and what I can accept are two different planets.
The EU is not dying…Many countries and most citizens of the EU and Europe have never been better off !
Poland , Central Europe, Ireland, Germany , Scandinavia have all been doing well over the last the few years.
Poland is doing extraordinary well. Portugal and Spain are recovering. Greece too. Italy is the biggest concern in the Eurozone. France has internal issues a bit like the UK with austerity and poverty in the regions.
It’s not perfect but it works fairly well overall.
This is correct. Now, how about free movement of labour?
I would like to see a realistic plan of how the UK will prosper after hard Brexit.
It depends what you mean by ‘free movement’ and ‘labour’, surely? If somebody just wants to turn up in whatever country, with no education and no skills, the chances are he’s going to be more of a burden than an asset. You can see this on intra-national scales in poor countries, where the rubes flock to the cities because they think that’s where the money is, and end up living on the streets collecting Coke cans, begging, or prostituting themselves.
Having screening programs for migrants doesn’t really preclude free movement. It just ensures that when people do move, they’re at least halfway likely to be able to support themselves. If somebody wants to move but finds himself blocked by a bozo filter, his immediate task is to not be a bozo. That’s a good thing for him, and it’s a good thing for society.
There’s also the issue of ecological carrying capacity. My own back-of-a-napkin estimates suggest that the sustainable limit is in the ballpark of 5 people per hectare, which puts the UK dangerously close already to its maximum load (bearing in mind that a lot of the UK is uninhabitable - I mean the far North, for example, not Hull). There has to be some way of managing that. Market forces actually do the job pretty well - by causing housing and food prices to rise - but if you subsidize those away, overpopulation is a real risk.
I meant free movement of labour as per Adam Smith.
OK, I could provide a link to the Adam Smith Institute, but to save time pure free markets require it.
after they shut down the borders to food maybe, man this brexit is getting real hard
He was describing a theoretical ideal which is more complicated in practice, and I don’t think he intended it to be taken at face value. He was simply trying to illustrate some general principles.
Smith’s version would only work in a completely unregulated market, which probably isn’t an ideal scenario because it would fail in other aspects - for example, people with few options would feel pressured to fill market niches which are best left unfilled, simply in order to stay alive.
“Free movement of labor” is code for free movement of welfare clients and cheap maids to clean the ruling class’ toilets. The jihadis are just along for the ride.
The way I see it, people who pay their way should be free to travel. That’s free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Those who don’t pay their way should stay in their shithole countries until they work out how to fix those shitholes. Because if a place is a huge crackhouse, it’s somebody’s fault, and that somebody is not the neighbor with the nice lawn.
It’s not just about food but also the human burden on the environment. There’s a certain hard limit on the rate at which an ecosystem can process the outputs of the animals living on it. Humans are tougher on the environment than most.
I initially replied to some guy who wanted the invisible hand while at the same time talking about immigration controls.
Yes, that’s my interpretation.
Thats nothing compared to the poop of livestock though. After meat exports crash and farming goes backrupt that problem will improve a lot
Livestock manure is only a problem because TPTB have decided that it should be so. Nature usually operates as a closed system, and by diverting manure away from the fields that grow the feed, the loop is broken. Something similar happens with human manure, which is flushed out to sea instead of being returned to the loop. It’s just stupid, but that’s what happens when you put economists in charge of running the show.
Yea I know, you are preaching to the Choir
I’m trying to save some hard cash, in anticipation of a lot of cheap agricultural land coming onto the real-estate market
It’s an ill wind etc.
I’m happy to be the bad guy who supposedly supports unrestrained immigration.
Just to make it clear however that that is not my position. I’m pointing out that genuine free markets, for good or bad, require free movement of labour.