We need more jobs!
Unemployment is high and the economy is only just about 0% growth. This isn't an inspiring time to be unemployed. Therefore it is the government's job to make jobs, apparently.
For the retarded amongst us that means they should borrow more and then spend it to 'create jobs'. Or as I call it borrow more money to give away. After all if there is a job to be done, surely people will pay for it themselves. If they can't afford it as a person, it is highly unlikely we can afford it as a nation. If people won't pay for it themselves then it is probably because they don't really want it or it costs more than it is worth.
This doesn't always apply of course. We know that the NHS works best because everyone (officially employed) has to pay it. Old and young, rich and poor, fit and unfit. This means we all pay a little rather than some paying a fortune and others paying virtually nothing.
But generally paying public servants is very inefficient, because you can never choose to stop paying them. If my car insurance company is rubbish I can stop paying them and go to another company. If the bus service is rubbish I can stop paying them and take a train. If a public service is rubbish, then I'm stuck paying for rubbish service. There is no pressure on them to slim down when they have too many people because the money rolls in regardless of the service provided.
Anyway, I'm getting distracted. What I wanted to talk about was what I discovered when I was in California a few weeks ago.
We tend to think of the US as the place of big businesses. What we know of the USA is largely based around films, television and the chain stores that make it over here to Great Britain. Many of us go on holiday to the US (if we're blessed with some extra money) but often that is to the East Coast and more specifically; Florida.
But what I didn't realise until recently was for every Starbucks/ McDonald's/Burger King in America there is a Carl's Jr/Chilli's/independent. That is for everyone huge shopping chain that makes it across the pond, there are several smaller mid size or just totally independent restaurants that we in the United Kingdom, have never heard of.
Why is this relevant to anything? I heard you ask. Why did you start talking about the economy and now reach hamburgers? Well you'll be glad to hear I haven't lost track. My point is the reason why the USA has so many huge corporations is partly because it has so many small ones. When you have a decent size base of small companies, statistically some are bound to do really well. This is good for everyone.
But this leads me on to another point, Americans just have a different attitude to starting businesses to us. I think this is for a couple of reasons. first off, British people are far more pessimistic than Americans. I have heard it said that the difference between British people and Americans is that Americans think that they are going to live forever and British people know that they are going to die. I thought it was an exaggeration but American people genuinely do seem to avoid thinking about death at all cost. Which seems a bit odd, since that and tax are the things that are certain for all (perhaps not co-incidentally tax is the other Americans avoid at all cost).
Either way, this incredible optimism combined with a feeling that they are part of a 'pioneering' culture and a belief that anyone can make it if they work hard (potentially with the spur that you keep the money you make and you don't get lots of welfare support) means that people in the US set up businesses a lot.
In contrast we can look at the UK. In the UK we are very skeptical of anyone who says that something can be done, easily, quickly and with huge success. In fact, we are just skeptical. This has good sides to it. We are less moved by emotive speeches by politicians, so we're less likely to elect a 'Hitler' (although this is never impossible). It also means that most of us are less likely to be convinced by advertising which promises to change your life when you by a new mop, or taste a new sweet. Some will, but the majority with roll their eyes and want to slap the person back into reality.
Our heritage too is completely different. British political and economic heritage stretches all the way back to 1066. Almost a thousand years. Here it was established (or should I say confirmed) that those in the establishment lord it over those below, who work hard and are kept at the bottom of the social scale. Today of course, this is not the case, but the culture still comes from that same source. Which is why, you'll notice, that a large part of being rich and successful in Britain isn't just about being rich and successful, but also about entering the establishment.
This is why much more credence is given to established professions in Britain than to almost any other work. There is almost instant respect for Doctors, Barristers, Solicitors and accountants. This is despite the fact that (whether it is known or not I don't know) many managers earn more than all of the preiously mentioned professions. The reason being of course because a profession seems far more 'upper class' than saying I'm a manager, because there is a whiff of the nouveau about it. Like some how you could have reached a managerial position without knowing which cutlery to use in a fine restaurant, and somehow these manners are important.
As a result the British legal system is one of the finest in the world. Many of the worlds largest law firms are based here (Slaughter and May, Freshfields, Linklaters, Clifford Chance and Allen & Overy but to name the obvious). Ernst & Young and Pricewaterhouse Coopers' profits run into tens of billions of pounds, they are enormous organisations unsurprisingly based on professional services such as accountancy.
So there is no doubt that both sides have their benefits. Americans have huge businesses, the British have huge professional practises. But the thing is professional services generally services business.
In this time of recession the one thing we don't have, is enough businesses. The news largely seems to show people complaining that the government isn't providing enough jobs. But the question may be asked, at what point did the government start being responsible for jobs. Now I have to declare at this point that my money comes, indirectly from the government. Not all of it, but most of it comes from central government. So feel free to discard everything I say. But I think it is worth hearing me out.
Why wait for the government to create jobs, when each person has the freedom to create their own. Finding something that people are willing to pay you to do, then doing it has been the basis of income for the free man for years (the exception being the peasant tied to a lord and slaves).
Maybe, we need to take a little bit of our American cousins' attitude to heart and once again stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit.
The wise among us at this point will point out that the US is also down the pan right now. I would agree, but I'd also note that they seem to have developed their own dependence on government a little like us.
No doubt there are things that the government can do to help, reduce paperwork and invest in infrastructure being the main ones. But generally that isn't much else they can do without borrowing more money and essentially just making the matter worse. In reality the economy rests on the shoulders of the people, not the Prime Minister.
PS When I've got £10,000 saved I want to start a business, any other investors?
Showing posts with label economic policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic policy. Show all posts
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Thursday, 11 August 2011
London's burning
As we all know London has spent the last few days being on fire while gangs roam the streets looting shops and burning cars.
I haven't seen anything like it in my lifetime, but then I'm unable to recall the Brixton riots. Now apart from the fact our reletively civilised country has had images captured of it looking more like a third world pit, something else really troubles me; the reaction of the public.
Now most of it has been appaul at the behaviour of the looters and rioters. So far so good. People should be appaulled and I'd be more worried if they were not. But my concern rests largely with the reaction after that.
Rather inevitably as events are going on people are asking why this has happened. The disturbing thing is that people start looking for 'big' explanations rather than the small. Socio-economic factors being the obvious and easy choice. Essentially many of the looters (although not all) are from poorer economic backgrounds. In addition we're going through econonmic hard times, so I can see it is going to be exceedingly popular with some people to say that the reason for the riots is due to the economic climate. This is wrong, and dangerous.
To begin economic times are hard, but they aren't really THAT hard. When one can't get food for yourself and your family, I appreciate that a natural tension develops. This is because when a hard working man can't obtain sufficient food for himself and his family, it is highly likely (unless there is a famine going on) something wrong with the way society is structured. Riots usually result in unheaval and so it is almost a logical reaction. This isn't what is going on at the moment.
For all our economic hardship everyone still have food and clothes and the government is still doleling out the benefits are usual, no crisis there. This is further supported by what is being looted; bread? Oats? Clean water? No. What is being looted is DVDs, CDs, wiskey, wine, in other words luxuries, things that people don't need, but want.
People don't need rose wine any more than I need fresh pressed orange juice each morning. It is nice, but not essential. In other words, it is something one has to work for. If the work isn't around that is unfortunate, but that is how economics works. Give it a couple of years and there will be money around again... unless all your businesses have been burnt to the ground by looters, that is.
This is not the only thing that shows that the riots are not about economic needs. Swansesa, South Wales, is a bit of a dive. Not completely, but it certainly isn't Cambridge. There are few highly skilled jobs to work towards and the average income is quite low. So too in the Rhondda Valleys, so too in Glasgow, and yet no one in these areas are rioting. A quick glance at the BBC news website for Scotland reveals that it's main story is about roads being flooded. The only arrests in both Wales and Scotland have been to do with people encouraging rioting on facebook and other social media sites.
Now, when one considers that the Welsh and Scottish have just as many deprived areas as the English, clearly it can be seen that this is nothing to do with poverty.
There is one explanation and one alone, there are people, who want things that they haven't worked for and they have no concern for those who have. They are selfish and believe they have a right to things that other people have, even if those people don't really have them at all. After all does a shop keeper really 'own' the widescreen TV on the shop floor? Legally it is his, but it doens't mean he watches a good TV at home, it is his, but his to sell to someone else, it is his livelyhood. Further the retail industry has been sufferring of late, which actually suggests no one really has the money for these things at the moment.
So what is the cause of the riots? Greed. Pure and simple. I want, I don't want to wait, I want it now, and I don't care who suffers as a result. A similar but slightly different kind of greed that makes the banks try to stop the UK from regulating them properly, while giving themselves huge bonuses. I want, I want now, I don't care who suffers. Although at least with the banks the sufferring is slightly less direct than with the rioters.
This then is the first thing that needs to be acknowledged by society. Greed is what has caused this, greed and a desire to put 'me' first and screw anyone else, "stuff your neighbour" if you will. Any talk of lack of opportunity or feeling 'let down' by the government it looking in the wrong place. It also undermines the behaviour of those who are also poor, but aren't burning down their neighbour's shop.
The second issue society needs to, and no doubt will consider, is what to do to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. That is a good reaction. Self-reflection is an important requirement for improvement in almost any aspect of one's life. But the issue is that we have stopped 'self-reflecting' and started 'government blaming'.
Now don't get me wrong. Anyone can read the rest of my blog and see that I do my fair share of slating the government. There is no doubt there. However, there is a time and a place. This is neither the time nor the place.
The government after all have no interest in either ruining the economy or having riots in the street. Both look very bad on the government and so we can rule out intentionally damaging either. After all even if David Cameron is a millionaire, he has his money in shares just like everyone else and so he wants the economy to improve even if it is for no other reason than for his own bank balance to increase.
But the main issue is, and this really needs to sink into our consciousness as a society:
THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONTROL EVERYTHING.
If they could, then the thing that we really need to worry about is not a few rioters in the street but the fact we have a totalitarian government so powerful it can control everything and everyone. That would be far more dangerous and probably result in far more suffering event than what we have now.
Further just logically people forget that the resources of the government are finite. We seem to thing that government is an everlasting stack of cash. But really the governments resources is only what you and I earn. Which means their resources are only our resources. Are you feeling the pinch? So in the government then. Can you only just make ends meet? Well that means the government can't tax you any more and if they do that will decrease the amount you can spend and that will hurt the economy. So basically since the police resources depend on the government and the government on us... and we're all broke. We need to start thinking of the government as the people who keep the basics of life ticking over, not the people who solve all of lifes problems.
Further, money, contrary to popular belief, can't solve all problems. Sending someone to university doesn't make them more intelligent. Giving someone £20 doesn't make them more moral and paying someone to do A-levels doesn't make them more hard working. So throwing money at the the problem won't make it go away. Giving the police more money would just mean more people in prison. Which means we'd need more money for prisons. Then they are always going to come out of prison and some point and the cycles starts again. It is incredibly expensive. The Budget for national offenders is around £4Bn. The home office has a budget of around £11bn together that is more than all the devolved spending in Wales.
The people who caused this were individuals. As a society we need to choose whether we accept this sort of behaviour and make excuses for it or whether we realise that it is we who dictate social norms and it is we who decided what is acceptable. We do it as parents and/or friends and/or work collegues and/or partners.
Listen to the clip on this website, then ask youself one question. Have WE (the people) go this balance right?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424
I haven't seen anything like it in my lifetime, but then I'm unable to recall the Brixton riots. Now apart from the fact our reletively civilised country has had images captured of it looking more like a third world pit, something else really troubles me; the reaction of the public.
Now most of it has been appaul at the behaviour of the looters and rioters. So far so good. People should be appaulled and I'd be more worried if they were not. But my concern rests largely with the reaction after that.
Rather inevitably as events are going on people are asking why this has happened. The disturbing thing is that people start looking for 'big' explanations rather than the small. Socio-economic factors being the obvious and easy choice. Essentially many of the looters (although not all) are from poorer economic backgrounds. In addition we're going through econonmic hard times, so I can see it is going to be exceedingly popular with some people to say that the reason for the riots is due to the economic climate. This is wrong, and dangerous.
To begin economic times are hard, but they aren't really THAT hard. When one can't get food for yourself and your family, I appreciate that a natural tension develops. This is because when a hard working man can't obtain sufficient food for himself and his family, it is highly likely (unless there is a famine going on) something wrong with the way society is structured. Riots usually result in unheaval and so it is almost a logical reaction. This isn't what is going on at the moment.
For all our economic hardship everyone still have food and clothes and the government is still doleling out the benefits are usual, no crisis there. This is further supported by what is being looted; bread? Oats? Clean water? No. What is being looted is DVDs, CDs, wiskey, wine, in other words luxuries, things that people don't need, but want.
People don't need rose wine any more than I need fresh pressed orange juice each morning. It is nice, but not essential. In other words, it is something one has to work for. If the work isn't around that is unfortunate, but that is how economics works. Give it a couple of years and there will be money around again... unless all your businesses have been burnt to the ground by looters, that is.
This is not the only thing that shows that the riots are not about economic needs. Swansesa, South Wales, is a bit of a dive. Not completely, but it certainly isn't Cambridge. There are few highly skilled jobs to work towards and the average income is quite low. So too in the Rhondda Valleys, so too in Glasgow, and yet no one in these areas are rioting. A quick glance at the BBC news website for Scotland reveals that it's main story is about roads being flooded. The only arrests in both Wales and Scotland have been to do with people encouraging rioting on facebook and other social media sites.
Now, when one considers that the Welsh and Scottish have just as many deprived areas as the English, clearly it can be seen that this is nothing to do with poverty.
There is one explanation and one alone, there are people, who want things that they haven't worked for and they have no concern for those who have. They are selfish and believe they have a right to things that other people have, even if those people don't really have them at all. After all does a shop keeper really 'own' the widescreen TV on the shop floor? Legally it is his, but it doens't mean he watches a good TV at home, it is his, but his to sell to someone else, it is his livelyhood. Further the retail industry has been sufferring of late, which actually suggests no one really has the money for these things at the moment.
So what is the cause of the riots? Greed. Pure and simple. I want, I don't want to wait, I want it now, and I don't care who suffers as a result. A similar but slightly different kind of greed that makes the banks try to stop the UK from regulating them properly, while giving themselves huge bonuses. I want, I want now, I don't care who suffers. Although at least with the banks the sufferring is slightly less direct than with the rioters.
This then is the first thing that needs to be acknowledged by society. Greed is what has caused this, greed and a desire to put 'me' first and screw anyone else, "stuff your neighbour" if you will. Any talk of lack of opportunity or feeling 'let down' by the government it looking in the wrong place. It also undermines the behaviour of those who are also poor, but aren't burning down their neighbour's shop.
The second issue society needs to, and no doubt will consider, is what to do to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. That is a good reaction. Self-reflection is an important requirement for improvement in almost any aspect of one's life. But the issue is that we have stopped 'self-reflecting' and started 'government blaming'.
Now don't get me wrong. Anyone can read the rest of my blog and see that I do my fair share of slating the government. There is no doubt there. However, there is a time and a place. This is neither the time nor the place.
The government after all have no interest in either ruining the economy or having riots in the street. Both look very bad on the government and so we can rule out intentionally damaging either. After all even if David Cameron is a millionaire, he has his money in shares just like everyone else and so he wants the economy to improve even if it is for no other reason than for his own bank balance to increase.
But the main issue is, and this really needs to sink into our consciousness as a society:
THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONTROL EVERYTHING.
If they could, then the thing that we really need to worry about is not a few rioters in the street but the fact we have a totalitarian government so powerful it can control everything and everyone. That would be far more dangerous and probably result in far more suffering event than what we have now.
Further just logically people forget that the resources of the government are finite. We seem to thing that government is an everlasting stack of cash. But really the governments resources is only what you and I earn. Which means their resources are only our resources. Are you feeling the pinch? So in the government then. Can you only just make ends meet? Well that means the government can't tax you any more and if they do that will decrease the amount you can spend and that will hurt the economy. So basically since the police resources depend on the government and the government on us... and we're all broke. We need to start thinking of the government as the people who keep the basics of life ticking over, not the people who solve all of lifes problems.
Further, money, contrary to popular belief, can't solve all problems. Sending someone to university doesn't make them more intelligent. Giving someone £20 doesn't make them more moral and paying someone to do A-levels doesn't make them more hard working. So throwing money at the the problem won't make it go away. Giving the police more money would just mean more people in prison. Which means we'd need more money for prisons. Then they are always going to come out of prison and some point and the cycles starts again. It is incredibly expensive. The Budget for national offenders is around £4Bn. The home office has a budget of around £11bn together that is more than all the devolved spending in Wales.
The people who caused this were individuals. As a society we need to choose whether we accept this sort of behaviour and make excuses for it or whether we realise that it is we who dictate social norms and it is we who decided what is acceptable. We do it as parents and/or friends and/or work collegues and/or partners.
Listen to the clip on this website, then ask youself one question. Have WE (the people) go this balance right?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
I can finally fire my Butler
Yesterday, I was astounded. This was because I was given a tea maker.
Why was I astounded by a tea maker, you may ask. Well this particular tea maker is to be set by your bedside so that in the morning when it is time for you to wake up you wake automatically to a fresh cup of tea. You don't even have to turn it on, it is on a timer so when you wake up, it does too.
So why is this amazing? I just can't believe how good the standard of living is at this point. The idea of having hot tea when you wake up is something that, years ago, would have been reserved for the landed gentry, those who could afford a gentleman's gentleman: a butler.
Now in today's Western modern world a veritable nobody of reasonable economic standing can be presented with such a gift.
This raises a couple of questions in my head. The main one being, do we all realise how blessed we are to have such a life style? Am I the only one who wakes up in the morning and thinks to myself I can't believe that I have such an astoundingly high standard of life, I cannot count my blessings if I had all day.
It also raises another question however.
Why isn't every Westerner really happy?
I guess there are a few reasons, one being that there are other big issues such as health (even if we have the best health care too). But I guess the fundamental point is what we knew already: having 'stuff' doesn't make you happy.
I guess it goes back to a fridge magnet I've seen, it said "the best things in life aren't things".
It is sort of strange that if you took a poll in the UK to see who was happy it would probably yeild the same results as in Africa or Asia or anywhere where the 'standard of living' would generally be considered lower.
The other thought is that is life so good because we work hard or because we're in so much debt we've just taken all the money the next generation is going to make and spent it on ourselves?
Strangely at this point I don't think I have an answer to that question. Still, if we are going to spend the next 70 years paying high tax with low public services at least there is this consolation; with less money and more time to focus on the things of life that really are important (God, family etc) we'll probably be a lot happier.
Why was I astounded by a tea maker, you may ask. Well this particular tea maker is to be set by your bedside so that in the morning when it is time for you to wake up you wake automatically to a fresh cup of tea. You don't even have to turn it on, it is on a timer so when you wake up, it does too.
So why is this amazing? I just can't believe how good the standard of living is at this point. The idea of having hot tea when you wake up is something that, years ago, would have been reserved for the landed gentry, those who could afford a gentleman's gentleman: a butler.
Now in today's Western modern world a veritable nobody of reasonable economic standing can be presented with such a gift.
This raises a couple of questions in my head. The main one being, do we all realise how blessed we are to have such a life style? Am I the only one who wakes up in the morning and thinks to myself I can't believe that I have such an astoundingly high standard of life, I cannot count my blessings if I had all day.
It also raises another question however.
Why isn't every Westerner really happy?
I guess there are a few reasons, one being that there are other big issues such as health (even if we have the best health care too). But I guess the fundamental point is what we knew already: having 'stuff' doesn't make you happy.
I guess it goes back to a fridge magnet I've seen, it said "the best things in life aren't things".
It is sort of strange that if you took a poll in the UK to see who was happy it would probably yeild the same results as in Africa or Asia or anywhere where the 'standard of living' would generally be considered lower.
The other thought is that is life so good because we work hard or because we're in so much debt we've just taken all the money the next generation is going to make and spent it on ourselves?
Strangely at this point I don't think I have an answer to that question. Still, if we are going to spend the next 70 years paying high tax with low public services at least there is this consolation; with less money and more time to focus on the things of life that really are important (God, family etc) we'll probably be a lot happier.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
New York, New York!
I am thinking I should fly to New York with British Airways. After all they are the best airline in the world, and since they are losing money I may not get too many chances to use them again. First class maybe? It would be a nice way to arrive at the beginning of a new chapter living on the other side of the pond.
Now I'm pretty patriotic, so why am I talking about moving state-side. Well this comes with the news that the newly appointed economic minister for the EU is French. Why then is this a reason for me to consider a flat (or should I say apartment) in Manhattan. Well, the new economic minister of the EU is French, this means that the UK is quite possibly screwed.
The problem with this is rooted the the differences between the French and British economy. They are completely different. The French economy is based on government protectionism, a strong leaning towards socialism and of course the desire to strike every five minutes. The French don't seem particularly bothered that their economy is accepted a stagnant. But they why would you when you can stay up until 6 in the morning on warm nights in the South of France sipping an espresso watching the moon light reflect off the sea...
Where was I? Oh yes. So essentially the French economy is stagnant and the government protects it as best as it can from competition from other nations (eg CAP). As a friend of mine from Notts once said 'if you want to get on the good side of French people rememeber how to say "I love to strike".
In contrast the UK has a completely different work ethic. In the provinces, sure, life is quite laid back, you go to work at your customer telephone helpline from 9 until 5 and then you come home and enjoy your life. But that isn't the case in London. London is the free market on cocaine (sometimes literally). If you live in London the next deal/case/contract is your next breath, if you miss it you're going to die. I would say in London people eat and sleep work but that would be misleading, it would imply that they get to sleep occasionally. In London once you've worked for a week with 4 hours of sleep each night to close a contract, you don't finish and then sleep for the next two days, you hit the clubs with your fellow workers and stay awake for another 24 hours, just for the fun of it.
As a result London wages are substantially higher than everywhere else in the UK. Deservedly so too. But the real heart of London, the beating heart of the UK economy is finance. Without it would would have a deficit so big we'd be... well the United States (jk). We don't make anything in the UK after all. We don't do cars (not outside of F1 racing anyway). We don't make ships. We don't make most of the things with a high value, we just make money. This works very well for us and as a result we are the country of finance. We have two rivals (New York and Hong Kong) but we are on the top of the pile. Well, we are right now.
But now we are going to have a man making our regulations who was brought up in a French economy. This will mean that he will want strong regulation for more stability and less profit.
The thing is 'less profit' rings in a bank managers ears like the trumpet of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. It will cause any bank directors hairs to stand on end. They will have a shiver down their spine like the coldest ice and then after being planted on the spot for 10 minutes without a single movement they will reach for their phones call their board and tell them they are moving to New York or Hong Kong, or hades, whichever one has the lowest income tax.
This the French won't care about because they have no banks to lose anyway. Britain on the the other hand have a lot to lose.
So what can be done. Well what should have happened in the first place is that the democratically elected representatives of the British people should have done what they are mean to and represent the people! This would mean that we wouldn't have the Lisbon Treaty in the first place and we wouldn't have to care about Michel Barnier or Sarkozy or anyone else for that matter. But then 'politicians do know best' don't they?
Anyway, I'm focusing too much on the past, to the future!
What is going to happen now? Well thankfully regardless of what the EU thinks it is going to do if it tries to over regulate then the UK hopefully will have the 'stones' to tell them that we've not going to agree to have our country sent back to the stone age. The EU likes making these noises about how they are going to make us suffer but realistically we have a Tory government coming up who would love to have some good ammunition to shoot at the Euro-philes. Europe isn't so stupid as to provide it for them.
Anything damaging to the UK in the next few years will be equally damaging to Europe.
So maybe I won't have to move to New York, maybe there is still hope that I can live in the UK and it won't fall apart in the immediate future, still it does make you wonder what berk thought that two countries were going to get on economically when one is as red as you can be without calling each other comrade and the other is as blue as you can be without calling each other 'dude'.
Now I'm pretty patriotic, so why am I talking about moving state-side. Well this comes with the news that the newly appointed economic minister for the EU is French. Why then is this a reason for me to consider a flat (or should I say apartment) in Manhattan. Well, the new economic minister of the EU is French, this means that the UK is quite possibly screwed.
The problem with this is rooted the the differences between the French and British economy. They are completely different. The French economy is based on government protectionism, a strong leaning towards socialism and of course the desire to strike every five minutes. The French don't seem particularly bothered that their economy is accepted a stagnant. But they why would you when you can stay up until 6 in the morning on warm nights in the South of France sipping an espresso watching the moon light reflect off the sea...
Where was I? Oh yes. So essentially the French economy is stagnant and the government protects it as best as it can from competition from other nations (eg CAP). As a friend of mine from Notts once said 'if you want to get on the good side of French people rememeber how to say "I love to strike".
In contrast the UK has a completely different work ethic. In the provinces, sure, life is quite laid back, you go to work at your customer telephone helpline from 9 until 5 and then you come home and enjoy your life. But that isn't the case in London. London is the free market on cocaine (sometimes literally). If you live in London the next deal/case/contract is your next breath, if you miss it you're going to die. I would say in London people eat and sleep work but that would be misleading, it would imply that they get to sleep occasionally. In London once you've worked for a week with 4 hours of sleep each night to close a contract, you don't finish and then sleep for the next two days, you hit the clubs with your fellow workers and stay awake for another 24 hours, just for the fun of it.
As a result London wages are substantially higher than everywhere else in the UK. Deservedly so too. But the real heart of London, the beating heart of the UK economy is finance. Without it would would have a deficit so big we'd be... well the United States (jk). We don't make anything in the UK after all. We don't do cars (not outside of F1 racing anyway). We don't make ships. We don't make most of the things with a high value, we just make money. This works very well for us and as a result we are the country of finance. We have two rivals (New York and Hong Kong) but we are on the top of the pile. Well, we are right now.
But now we are going to have a man making our regulations who was brought up in a French economy. This will mean that he will want strong regulation for more stability and less profit.
The thing is 'less profit' rings in a bank managers ears like the trumpet of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. It will cause any bank directors hairs to stand on end. They will have a shiver down their spine like the coldest ice and then after being planted on the spot for 10 minutes without a single movement they will reach for their phones call their board and tell them they are moving to New York or Hong Kong, or hades, whichever one has the lowest income tax.
This the French won't care about because they have no banks to lose anyway. Britain on the the other hand have a lot to lose.
So what can be done. Well what should have happened in the first place is that the democratically elected representatives of the British people should have done what they are mean to and represent the people! This would mean that we wouldn't have the Lisbon Treaty in the first place and we wouldn't have to care about Michel Barnier or Sarkozy or anyone else for that matter. But then 'politicians do know best' don't they?
Anyway, I'm focusing too much on the past, to the future!
What is going to happen now? Well thankfully regardless of what the EU thinks it is going to do if it tries to over regulate then the UK hopefully will have the 'stones' to tell them that we've not going to agree to have our country sent back to the stone age. The EU likes making these noises about how they are going to make us suffer but realistically we have a Tory government coming up who would love to have some good ammunition to shoot at the Euro-philes. Europe isn't so stupid as to provide it for them.
Anything damaging to the UK in the next few years will be equally damaging to Europe.
So maybe I won't have to move to New York, maybe there is still hope that I can live in the UK and it won't fall apart in the immediate future, still it does make you wonder what berk thought that two countries were going to get on economically when one is as red as you can be without calling each other comrade and the other is as blue as you can be without calling each other 'dude'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
